AB Ltd., the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendants from using the trademark "Sun Plus" in connection with soaps or detergents. The plaintiff also seeks to restrain the defendant

The Doctrine of Likelihood of Confusion under India's Trade Marks Act, 1999, is a core principle in trademark law, primarily addressed in Section 11(1) (refusal of registration) and Section 29 (infringement). It prevents registration or finds infringement if an unauthorized mark is so similar (visually, phonetically, or conceptually) to an existing registered mark, for similar goods/services, that the public is likely to be deceived or confused into believing there's a connection with the original brand. Courts assess factors like mark similarity, goods/services relatedness, and the unwary consumer's perspective, with concepts like "initial interest confusion" also gaining traction, especially online. Section 11 provides for the relative grounds for refusal of registration. 11(1) states that : Save as provided in section 12, a trade mark shall not be registered if, because of- (a) its identity with an earlier trade mark and similarity of goods or services covered by the trade mark; or (b) its similarity to an earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. The concept of likelihood of confusion is also addressed in Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 16 says that the owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services. And such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed. The rights described above shall not prejudice any existing prior rights, nor shall they affect the possibility of Members making rights available based on use. In the case of Starbucks Corporation vs. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. & Ors., CS (COMM) 1007/2018 . In this case the plaintiff Starbucks, in India, registered their trademark with a word-mark pronounced as STARBUCKS along with a logo visualising "crowned maiden with long hair". Whereas, the defendant, being a local vendor, initiated his business in 2015, with a name called "Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co". Both were dealing with the same product. The court observed that the name used by the defendant was, likely to cause confusion in the minds of the customers. As a consequence, the court ordered the defendant to change the name of its outlet to "Sardarji-Bakhsh Coffee and Co." from "Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co". Factors Considered for Determining Likelihood of Confusion Between Two Trademarks While determining whether the use of one trademark is likely to cause confusion or deception, courts consider the issue from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, and not by a side-by-side comparison. The following factors are generally taken into account: Similarity of the Marks The degree of similarity between the competing marks in appearance, sound, structure, and idea. Overall similarity is more important than minute differences. Nature of the Goods or Services Whether the goods or services covered by the marks are identical, similar, or allied and cognate in nature. Class of Purchasers The nature of consumers, their education, intelligence, and level of care while purchasing the goods. Mode of Purchase and Surrounding Circumstances Whether the goods are purchased over the counter, online, or on prescription, and whether purchases are made casually or after careful consideration. Nature and Strength of the Plaintiff's Mark Whether the mark is distinctive, invented, or has acquired reputation and goodwill in the market. Likelihood of Association Whether the use of the impugned mark is likely to create an impression that the defendant's goods are associated with or originate from the plaintiff. Honesty of Adoption Whether the defendant adopted the mark bona fide or with dishonest intention to ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff. Evidence of Actual Confusion (if any) Though not mandatory, evidence showing actual confusion strengthens the claim.