{"id":11431,"date":"2025-11-10T06:33:17","date_gmt":"2025-11-10T06:33:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11431"},"modified":"2025-11-10T06:37:34","modified_gmt":"2025-11-10T06:37:34","slug":"visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Visual Similarity, Marketplace Confusion, and Trademark Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"fact-summary\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Fact_Summary\"><\/span>Fact Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The dispute is between <b>Ifra Sheikh<\/b>, acting through a power of attorney and trading as <b>Rocket Bidi Works<\/b>, and <b>Ms Mobile Bidi Traders<\/b>, a partnership firm. The plaintiff, Ms Mobile Bidi Traders, has been making, marketing, and selling handmade bidis and matchboxes since 2005 and claims to have a registered trademark \u201cOnline Bidi\u201d (registered on <b>04.01.2020<\/b>, application dated <b>31.08.2017<\/b>) and copyright over its label design (registered <b>13.06.2024<\/b>).<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Fact_Summary\" >Fact Summary<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Procedural_Details\" >Procedural Details<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Appellants_Arguments\" >Appellant\u2019s Arguments<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Central_Dispute\" >Central Dispute<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Defendants_Stand\" >Defendant\u2019s Stand<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Plaintiffs_Stand\" >Plaintiff\u2019s Stand<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Detailed_Reasoning_and_Discussion\" >Detailed Reasoning and Discussion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Health_Warning_Argument\" >Health Warning Argument<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Relevant_Precedent\" >Relevant Precedent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Arm-Chair_Rule\" >Arm-Chair Rule<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Exercise_of_Discretion\" >Exercise of Discretion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Judgment\" >Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-similarity-marketplace-confusion-and-trademark-rights\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The plaintiff asserts that the design and blue color scheme of its packaging\u2014known as \u201cAsmani Puda\u201d in the market\u2014sets its product apart, especially as consumers are mainly workers and laborers from less educated backgrounds, making them prone to confusion. The defendant, Ifra Sheikh, sells bidis under the brand \u201cATM Bidi No.07.\u201d The plaintiff alleges that the defendant\u2019s color scheme and packaging design are deceptively similar to their own, causing a likelihood of confusion among ordinary purchasers who recognize products by appearance rather than name.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Details\"><\/span>Procedural Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Ms Mobile Bidi Traders filed <b>Trademark Suit No.05 of 2024<\/b> in the District Court, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from using confusingly similar marks or packaging. On <b>12.08.2025<\/b>, the District Judge-12, Nagpur, granted this temporary injunction, leading the defendant to file the present appeal before the High Court.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"appellant-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellants_Arguments\"><\/span>Appellant\u2019s Arguments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The two products are not similar, especially after the defendant altered its design on 01.07.2024 to avoid further disputes.<\/li>\n<li>The plaintiff\u2019s packaging allegedly lacked the statutory health warning required by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008.<\/li>\n<li>Therefore, the plaintiff should not be granted equitable relief of injunction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Earlier, an application under <b>Order 7 Rule 11 CPC<\/b> by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on this ground was dismissed by the trial court.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"central-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Central_Dispute\"><\/span>Central Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The central issue was whether the defendant\u2019s packaging was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, potentially misleading consumers and infringing the plaintiff\u2019s registered trademark and copyright.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"defendant-stand\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defendants_Stand\"><\/span>Defendant\u2019s Stand<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The new packaging design was not similar.<\/li>\n<li>There were sufficient distinguishing features between the two products.<\/li>\n<li>Statutory non-compliance with health warnings on plaintiff\u2019s packaging should disentitle the plaintiff from relief.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"plaintiff-stand\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Plaintiffs_Stand\"><\/span>Plaintiff\u2019s Stand<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The broad similarities in appearance, particularly the blue color scheme, were likely to confuse consumers.<\/li>\n<li>Consumers in this market segment are not generally literate or brand-aware.<\/li>\n<li>The existing health warnings on retail bundles met the statutory requirements.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"court-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning_and_Discussion\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning and Discussion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The court observed that the end consumer of bidis\u2014typically workers or laborers\u2014tends to identify brands by their packaging and overall appearance rather than names or subtle design differences.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Both parties\u2019 bidi bundles used a blue conical design.<\/li>\n<li>Both included health warnings on the retail bundles (even if missing on the wholesale packets).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The trial court rightly found that similarities in color scheme and visual presentation could be deceptive for such consumers.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"health-warning-argument\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Health_Warning_Argument\"><\/span>Health Warning Argument<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In response to the defendant\u2019s contention that missing health warnings should disentitle relief, the court referred to the <b>Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003<\/b> and its implementing rules.<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Relevant Provision<\/th>\n<th>Requirement \/ Observation<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Section 7, 14, 15, 20 of the 2003 Act<\/td>\n<td>Require statutory warnings on every retail package.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Rule 3(e) of the 2008 Rules<\/td>\n<td>Applies to labeling and packaging of tobacco products.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The court found that although the wholesale outer package lacked the warning, the retail bundle carried it. Therefore, even if there was a procedural lapse, it did not justify denial of trademark protection. Relief could not be refused unless statutory authorities took separate action against the plaintiff. The intent of these laws is consumer protection, not a defense strategy in trademark litigation.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"precedents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Relevant_Precedent\"><\/span>Relevant Precedent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The court relied on <b>Ms Hiralal Industries Ltd. v. S.M. Associates and others (AIR 1984 Bom 218)<\/b>, which held that even where distinguishing features exist, overall similarities\u2014especially from the viewpoint of an ordinary consumer\u2014are decisive in confusion analysis.<\/p>\n<p>The court dismissed the argument on sales figures, noting that the plaintiff\u2019s registered rights pertained to the blue-labeled packaging, which was central to the dispute.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"arm-chair-rule\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arm-Chair_Rule\"><\/span>Arm-Chair Rule<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The appellate court reiterated the <b>\u201carm-chair rule\u201d<\/b>\u2014how a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection perceives the products. The focus remained on protecting consumers influenced by broad visual similarities in the marketplace.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"discretion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Exercise_of_Discretion\"><\/span>Exercise of Discretion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The court held that interference with a discretionary order like a temporary injunction is warranted only in cases of clear error or legal mistake. No such error was found here.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judgement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment\"><\/span>Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The High Court upheld the trial court\u2019s order and found no error in its approach. It held:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The plaintiff\u2019s mark \u201cOnline Bidi\u201d and associated blue-colored trade dress are protected under <b>Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/b> and the <b>Copyright Act, 1957<\/b>.<\/li>\n<li>Violations of packaging laws under the 2003 Act or 2008 Rules only result in statutory penalties, not automatic disentitlement from trademark relief.<\/li>\n<li><b>Section 15<\/b> of the 2003 Act allows conditional release of goods if labeling issues are corrected.<\/li>\n<li>The principle from <b>Hiralal Industries Ltd. v. S.M. Associates<\/b>\u2014that broad similarities prevail\u2014was reaffirmed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Therefore, the temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar trade dress was justified.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The appeal was dismissed. The trial court\u2019s temporary injunction against the defendant\u2019s use of packaging and branding similar to the plaintiff\u2019s was upheld. The court made no order as to costs.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Title<\/th>\n<td>Ifra Sheikh Trading as Rocket Bidi Works Vs. Ms Mobile Bidi Traders<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Order Date<\/th>\n<td>04.11.2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Number<\/th>\n<td>Appeal Against Order No.19 of 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Neutral Citation<\/th>\n<td>2025BHC-NAG11393<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Court<\/th>\n<td>High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Hon\u2019ble Judge<\/th>\n<td>Justice Rohit W. Joshi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p><b>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b><br \/>\nIP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)<br \/>\nHigh Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Fact Summary The dispute is between Ifra Sheikh, acting through a power of attorney and trading as Rocket Bidi Works, and Ms Mobile Bidi Traders, a partnership firm. The plaintiff, Ms Mobile Bidi Traders, has been making, marketing, and selling handmade bidis and matchboxes since 2005 and claims to have a registered trademark \u201cOnline Bidi\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24,841],"class_list":{"0":"post-11431","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in","8":"tag-trademark-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}