Riddhi Glass Works Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing decorative glass sheets applied for registration of a particular ornamental pattern used on its glass products under the Designs Act, 2000. The company claimed

Answer 4(b) The Initial Interest Confusion Test is Trademark doctrine used to prevent infringement when a consumer is momentarily misled by a similar mark even though the confusion is cleared up before the actual purchase is made. It seeks to protect a brand's goodwill and online visibility. The test owes its genesis to the landmark US case Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment where the Defendant had put up a deceptive billboard of the Plaintiff's brand at a highway exit. The customer having been lured by the brand exit the highway. Though he realised his mistake, he still bought from the competitor. The Court held that even though there was no confusion at the cash register, the Defendant had unfairly captured the consumer's initial attention. To establish the Initial Interest test, Courts typically look at the following factors: (i) Strength of the Plaintiff's original trademark (ii) Similarity of the two marks (iii) Proximity of the goods and services (iv) Intent of the Defendant Initial Interest has become a cornerstone doctrine in internet related Trademark disputes. Courts frequently utilize it to cases involving (i) Search engine Optimization (Using a rival trademark in one's website code to attract searchers to one's own site) (ii) Keyword Bidding (Bidding on a competitor's brand as a search keyword so that the rival's ad appears first when the user searches for the competitor's brand) (iii) Misleading Domain names and URLs (Creating websites with similar names and lookalike sites to mislead consumers). The reasoning is that wrongful attention unfairly competes with attention from consumers, something in ecommerce spaces is a scarce asset. The most notable case is HOTELS.COM, LP(Plaintiff) Versus BARATH M L and Anr (Defendants) Delhi High Court CS(COMM) 1133/2024 wherein the Delhi High Court judgement dated September 26, 2025 had the occasion to consider and adopt this doctrine. Judgement In view of the overall similarity between the Plaintiff's Mark and the Impugned Marks, the Defendants' infringing activities are bound to cause confusion in the minds of the consumers, who will assume the Defendants' products and services to have originated from the business or house of the Plaintiff. High Court referred to the case of Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784 , wherein it was held that the initial interest confusion Test proceeds on the principle that confusion in the minds of consumers may arise at the preliminary stage, prior to the actual purchase being completed. At the point of finalising the transaction, the consumer may no longer be in doubt as to the true origin of the goods or services. Nonetheless, even such transient confusion at the initial stage is sufficient to meet the requirement of deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The infringer's objective may be served merely by diverting the consumer's initial attention. The consumer may, thereafter, consciously opt for the infringer's product on account of its own characteristics, with complete knowledge that it is unconnected with the registered Trade Mark. The Defendants' use of the Impugned Marks is with the purpose of causing confusion in the mind of the customers to generate traffic to the Impugned Marks riding upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff's Mark. The Defendant cannot be allowed to take advantage of the Plaintiff's goodwill and use a Mark that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Mark in order to generate traffic to the Impugned Website.