What amounts to an 'inherently deceptive mark' under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

As per Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, a mark shall be deceptively similar to another mark if it is so nearly resembles that other mark as to likely to deceive or cause confusion. The terms similarity of trademarks is to be construed as "deceptively similar" which expression has been defined "as so nearly resembling that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion". Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with absolute grounds for refusal of registration of a trade mark. Section 9(1) of the Act prohibits registration of a trademark- if trademarks which are devoid of any distinctive character; that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another person. Further, Section 9(2) prohibits registration of a trademark - if the mark is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion. An objection under Section 9(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to the registration of a mark will only be raised if there is any real potential for deception of the public. Section 9(2)(a) is primarily concerned with the deceptive nature of the mark by reason of something inherent in the mark itself or in its use, such as to nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services. The mark may be in the nature of misrepresentation as to the characteristics of the goods or services or to the effect that they were made in a specified geographical region or place when in fact not so made. Deceptive use may also arise where the mark contains misleading indication (such as the use of the word "registered" when the mark is not registered) or marks which are used in a fraudulent trade. Objections under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 at first examination stage should be taken where there is prima facie misrepresentation as to "nature or quality of goods/services, geographical origin" etc. It is not necessary to raise an objection to the mark where there is no realistic possibility of deception. In the case of Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [AIR 2002 SC117] Supreme Court broadly stated, in an action for passing - off on the basis of unregistered trade mark generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity the following factors are to be considered- The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or labels marks or composite marks i.e. both words and label works. The degree of resembleness between the marks, phonetically similar and hence similar in idea. The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trade marks. The similarity in nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders Class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, 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 the goods or placing orders for the goods. Any other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in the extant of dissimilarity between the competing marks. Weightage to be given to each of the aforesaid factors depending upon facts of each case and the same weightage cannot be given to each factor in every case.