XX is a renowned company manufacturing different kinds of soft drinks. The company got registered a Trademark SOFTA for its soft drinks. The soft drinks became very popular with customers and the company registered a goo

Yes, there is an infringement of the registered Trademark 'SOFTA' by the company YY. Here are the reasons: 1. Deceptive Similarity: The Trademarks 'SOFTA' and 'SIFTA' are phonetically and visually similar. Section 2(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, defines "deceptively similar" as a mark that so nearly resembles another mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The similarity between 'SOFTA' and 'SIFTA' is likely to cause confusion among consumers, especially given that both are used for soft drinks. 2. Nature of Goods and Consumers: The goods in question are soft drinks, which are purchased by the general public, including children, who may not be highly educated or discerning. In such cases, the chances of deception are even higher. The criteria for determining deceptive similarity, as laid down in Cadila Healthcare Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Limited , include: The nature of the marks (words, labels, or composite marks). The degree of resemblance between the marks (phonetic or visual), or similarity in the idea. The nature of goods or services in respect of which they are used as trademarks. The similarity in the nature, character, and performance of the goods/services of the rival traders/service providers. The class of purchasers/customers who are likely to buy the goods or avail the services, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or using the goods. The mode of purchasing in the trading channels that the goods/services traverse in the course of business or placing an order for the good. 3. Malafide Intention / Riding Piggyback: The adoption of the Trademark 'SIFTA', which appears to have no inherent meaning, when an established Trademark 'SOFTA' by XX already exists in the market, suggests a lack of bona fide intention on the part of YY. The object appears to be to deceive the public into purchasing YY's product, misleading them to assume that it emanates from XX. This is a clear attempt to 'ride piggyback' on the reputation and goodwill of XX. 4. Defendant's Conduct: YY's failure to submit a written reply or evidence before the Registrar, and its subsequent absence from the proceedings, further weakens its defense. While YY orally contended that 'SOFTA' and 'SIFTA' were distinguishable, its lack of substantive defense and evidence indicates a weak case. Conclusion: Based on the deceptive similarity of the marks, the nature of the goods and consumers, and the apparent malafide intention of YY to capitalize on XX's reputation, it can be concluded that YY has infringed XX's registered Trademark 'SOFTA'.