A Company named Ramsung manufacture Automobile under the name Roi Jaguar. The Ramsung Company is engaged in the manufacture of a wide range of automobile products including diesel engines, generating sets, agro equipment

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are often granted to intellectual property creators in order to protect their rights for their innovations. In contrast to other IPs, the fundamental objective of granting one business exclusive rights to an identifiable name or symbol is for the convenience of the general population. Any term, phrase, artwork, or style that serves as an identification for a company in the market and sets it distinct from its competitors is considered a trademark. Therefore, the main reason for registering trademarks is to protect consumers while preventing them from being misled by the wide range of market players. In light of this, it is even more important to protect clients from being duped by identical identifiers. This makes the idea of "Deceptive Similarity" feel beneficial under trademark law. Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines the word "deceptively similar" as "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". It implies that two enterprises may be labeled as deceptively similar if the company's mark is so close to an already established trademark that utilizing it will lead customers to inaccurately identify the two companies. In the said case the trial court held that the two drugs Falcitab and Falcigo differ in price, appearance and composition. It was sold to hospitals and institutions and thus there was no chance of deception or of confusion especially as the drug was not sold to any individual. The appellant 's appeal was dismissed by the single Judge of the High Court holding that there was no chance of any passing off one product for the other when special leave petition was filed before Supreme Court the said Court did not consider it necessary to interfere order of the High Court. However, the court has set out factors to be kept in mind while dealing with an action for infringement and passing off especially in cases relating to medical products. They are as under: Nature of marks that is whether the marks are word marks or label marks or compound marks Degree of resemblance between marks phonetically similar and hence similar in idea Nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trademarks. Similarity in nature character and performance of the goods of rival traders. Mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the goods and any other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks. The criteria for detecting deceptive similarity were established long ago by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Cadila Healthcare Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd. in 2001 . The court established specific guidelines for this particular scenario. It ruled that the following factors should be taken into account in determining whether a mark is deceptive: a) the nature of the products or services the mark relates to; b) the degree of resemblance between the two marks, and c) The type of mark-whether it be a word, symbol, or phrase, and the target audience that the company offers are also significant factors. In another case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. JP Co. Mysore , the Hon'ble Supreme Court established a standard to evaluate whether two trademarks are deceptively similar. It said that a thorough examination of both marks was not required. Instead, the degree of general resemblance should be assessed based on the possibility of customer misunderstanding that it could result. In Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v. Kraft Jacobs Suchard Ltd. , while rejecting opposition it was held that registration of trademark shall not be refused when there is no likelihood of confusion. The mark "MILKA" was sought to be registered for bread while the same mark was already registered for chocolates. In case the goods are different still the registrar is mandated to refuse registration is there is a likelihood of confusion. The trademark TOSIBA was found to be deceptively similar to the registered famous trademark "TOSHIBA" but the question was relating to the similarity or difference of goods in two applications. The mark was not allowed registration even though the applicant amended the application by dropping the goods in which TOSHIBA had interest.