BrightGlow Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. has been making and selling herbal cosmetic products under the brand name "NATURAGLOW" since 2015. They have registered this name under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for their cosmetic products
CS Executive · Economic, Commercial and Intellectual Property Laws · PYQS · June 2026
BrightGlow Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. has been making and selling herbal cosmetic products under the brand name "NATURAGLOW" since 2015. They have registered this name under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for their cosmetic products. Over the years, they have spent a lot of money on advertising and their brand has become well-known and popular among customers. In 2023, another company called NaturalGlow Herbals Pvt. Ltd. started selling similar cosmetic products using the mark "NATURAGLO". They also copied the same colour combination and packaging style. BrightGlow claims that the new mark is very similar to their own and will confuse customers. They also say that NaturalGlow is violating their trademark by using a similar name in their company. NaturalGlow defended itself by arguing that the words "Natura" and "Glow" are common words used in the cosmetics industry and cannot be owned by one company. They also said that there was no real chance of confusion among buyers. Meanwhile, BrightGlow applied for registration of a new logo. The Registrar raised objections under Section 9 on the ground that the mark lacked distinctiveness. However, the mark was later advertised. Within the prescribed period, a third party filed a notice of opposition against the registration. BrightGlow has now filed a suit for infringement and passing off against NaturalGlow. Based on above facts, answer the following questions with legal provision in reference to Trade Marks Act, 1999. Whether "NATURAGLO" can be considered deceptively similar to "NATURAGLOW"?
Answer & Explanation:
Under Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The marks "NATURAGLOW" and "NATURAGLO" are phonetically and visually similar. The difference in spacing or minor variation does not materially distinguish the marks. Since both are used in respect of similar cosmetic goods, likelihood of confusion among consumers is probable. Therefore, the defendant's mark may be held deceptively similar.
Topics: Intellectual Property Law
Related Questions in this Topic
- Explain the term "Industrial Property" under Intellectual Property Rights?
- Explain the essential requirements for the registration of a 'Design' under the Designs Act, 2000.
- What is meant by copyright under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in relation to a computer programme and an artist...
- What is the tort of passing off in relation to unregistered trademarks? What are the essential elements that a plaintiff...
- Nature Fresh Pvt. Ltd. obtained registration of the trade mark "GREENBITE" in 2016 for packaged fruit juices. However, a...