Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, set aside the order of the District Judge that had restrained the appellant from using the trademark “SNT” for popcorn maize, holding that the trial court failed to properly assess the visual and phonetic differences between the two competing products’ trade dress.
Justice Rohit W. Joshi observed that “while comparing two trade dresses or packets, the court must sit in the armchair of the end consumer to assess whether there exists any likelihood of confusion.” The Court remanded the matter for a fresh determination of the injunction application, directing the trial court to thoroughly evaluate all distinguishing and similar features before forming its conclusion.
Facts
The respondent company, a century-old trading house engaged in the export and import of pulses, oil seeds, and maize, claimed ownership of the registered trademark “SNN,” registered in 2022 under Class 31, covering agricultural and food grain products. The company alleged that it had built a strong reputation and goodwill under the “SNN” mark in the grain and corn market.
The respondent filed a trademark suit against the appellant, who marketed popcorn maize kernels under the mark “SNT,” alleging that it had deliberately adopted a deceptively similar mark and packaging to mislead consumers and exploit the respondent’s market goodwill.
The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from using “SNT” for maize and allied products, finding the two marks and trade dress deceptively similar. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Bombay High Court.
Issues
- Whether the marks “SNN” and “SNT” and their respective packaging were deceptively similar in appearance and likely to confuse consumers.
- Whether the trial court properly applied the legal test of deceptive similarity and compared the two trade dresses as a whole.
- Whether the injunction order was sustainable in light of the factual and visual distinctions between the two products.
Petitioner’s arguments
The appellant contended that the respondent’s trademark registration covered only a word mark (“SNN”) and not the packaging or design. Therefore, any claim of deceptive similarity in trade dress was beyond the scope of protection granted by the registration.
It was argued that the design, colour, and placement of elements on the two packets were completely distinct. The appellant pointed out that in the respondent’s packaging, “SNN,” “POPCORN,” and “MAIZE” appeared prominently in bold capital letters on the left top corner of the packet, while the appellant’s “SNT” appeared centrally but in smaller, less prominent font. The packaging of the appellant was multi-coloured, with images of puffed popcorn and corn cobs, while the respondent’s was primarily two-toned with textual emphasis.
The appellant asserted that the trial court had reached its conclusion mechanically, without examining the packets in detail or addressing the striking visual dissimilarities. It further contended that its trademark application under Class 31 was still pending and that the earlier refusal under Class 30 did not invalidate its right to use the mark for agricultural produce. The appellant prayed for the injunction to be vacated.
Respondent’s arguments
The respondent argued that it held a valid registered trademark in “SNN” and had established decades of reputation and consumer recognition. It claimed that the appellant’s use of “SNT,” along with a similar trade dress and product category, was an attempt to encash upon its goodwill and deceive buyers in the same market segment.
The respondent contended that the trial court had considered the overall impression created by the two packages and correctly found them deceptively similar. It argued that the marks shared phonetic resemblance and that the visual layout—placement of brand name, description, and product images—was confusingly alike.
Citing settled law, the respondent urged that the appellate court should not interfere with the trial court’s discretionary order unless it was shown to be perverse or unreasonable, emphasizing that prima facie satisfaction of similarity was sufficient to warrant interim protection.
Analysis of the law
The High Court analyzed the principles under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines infringement and deceptive similarity. Justice Joshi reaffirmed that while determining deceptive similarity, courts must consider the marks and trade dress as a whole, paying attention to their overall visual impression rather than isolated differences.
However, the Court clarified that a finding of deceptive similarity cannot be made by mere assumption or general observation—it must be supported by a clear examination of features such as colour scheme, font, placement of elements, pictorial representation, and the manner of presentation to the consumer.
Justice Joshi emphasized that “distinctive features should be discussed in order to decide whether the two trade dresses, viewed as a whole, would cause confusion in the mind of end consumers or not.” The Court found that the trial judge had merely concluded that the packets were “deceptively similar” without a reasoned comparison or detailed evaluation.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on the settled principles in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73, which laid down the parameters for assessing deceptive similarity—nature of the marks, degree of resemblance, nature of goods, class of purchasers, and surrounding circumstances.
It also referred to Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. (1990 Supp SCC 727), emphasizing that appellate courts should not ordinarily interfere with discretionary injunctions unless the trial court’s decision suffers from non-application of mind or overlooks vital aspects.
By referencing these precedents, the Court concluded that the trial court had failed to engage in a holistic comparison and had not adopted the consumer’s perspective, warranting remand for fresh consideration.
Court’s reasoning
The High Court observed that a visual comparison between the two packages revealed substantial dissimilarities that were ignored by the trial court. The respondent’s “SNN” package prominently displayed its mark at the top left corner in white letters, while the appellant’s “SNT” mark appeared centrally with puffed popcorn imagery and yellow, brown, and green tones—creating a markedly different visual impact.
The Court noted that “the trial court’s order lacks a discussion of how an average consumer would perceive the two packets in real-world market conditions.” It underscored that in trademark disputes involving fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), the test of confusion must be based on the perception of the ordinary purchaser, who buys the product by appearance rather than minute scrutiny.
Consequently, the Court held that the trial court had failed to conduct the proper analysis and had reached its conclusion mechanically, necessitating a remand for a de novo decision.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court partially allowed the appeal, quashing the injunction order dated 26 June 2025 and remanding the matter to the District Judge for fresh consideration. The trial court was directed to re-evaluate the temporary injunction application in light of the High Court’s observations and after comparing the trade dresses in detail.
Justice Joshi concluded: “The court must sit in the armchair of the end consumer to determine whether there exists any likelihood of confusion in the market.” The appellate court clarified that it was not deciding whether the marks were ultimately similar, but only that the trial court must apply its mind to that question afresh.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the necessity of a meticulous and consumer-centric approach in trademark infringement cases, particularly in industries involving packaged goods where trade dress plays a vital role. It reaffirms that courts must analyze similarity not in isolation but as perceived by the target consumer.
The judgment also serves as a reminder that trial courts must provide detailed reasoning in injunction matters, as such interim relief often determines the commercial fate of the parties before final adjudication.
