{"id":15075,"date":"2026-02-01T06:17:57","date_gmt":"2026-02-01T06:17:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=15075"},"modified":"2026-02-01T06:22:44","modified_gmt":"2026-02-01T06:22:44","slug":"identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/","title":{"rendered":"Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trademark &#8216;Nandini&#8217; has long been synonymous with dairy products in Karnataka and surrounding regions, owing to its extensive and continuous use by the Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited since 1983. This mark enjoys significant goodwill and reputation as a household name for milk and milk-based products.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 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\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/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\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/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\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Key_Parties_Involved\" >Key Parties Involved<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Grounds_Of_Opposition_Raised_By_KMF\" >Grounds Of Opposition Raised By KMF<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Procedural_Timeline\" >Procedural Timeline<\/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\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Reasoning_and_Decision_of_Court\" >Reasoning and Decision of Court<\/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\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Findings_of_the_Deputy_Registrar\" >Findings of the Deputy Registrar<\/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\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Reference_to_Supreme_Court_Precedent\" >Reference to Supreme Court 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\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Distinction_Drawn_by_Madras_High_Court\" >Distinction Drawn by Madras High Court<\/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\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Likelihood_of_Consumer_Confusion\" >Likelihood of Consumer Confusion<\/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\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Clarification_of_Supreme_Court_Ruling\" >Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The recent judgment of the Madras High Court in (T)CMA(TM) No.112 of 2023 reaffirms the judiciary&#8217;s commitment to safeguarding well-known marks from deceptive similarity, even when applied to non-competing goods. In this appeal transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the Court overturned the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks&#8217; order dismissing the Federation&#8217;s opposition to registration of an identical &#8216;Nandini&#8217; mark (in stylised small letters without prefix or suffix) for agarbattis and doops in Class 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision turns on phonetic identity, identical stylistic presentation, and the risk of consumer confusion or association, distinguishing it from the Supreme Court&#8217;s earlier ruling in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (2018) 9 SCC 183.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By allowing the appeal, the Court emphasized that phonetic and visual similarity, coupled with the mark&#8217;s acquired reputation, can justify refusal of registration under Sections 11 and 11(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, irrespective of goods being dissimilar, thereby reinforcing protection against dilution or unfair advantage being taken of established marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (KMF), is a federation of milk producers engaged in the procurement, processing, distribution, and sale of milk and milk products across Karnataka and neighbouring states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Since 1983, KMF has continuously used the trade mark &#8216;Nandini&#8217; for its entire range of dairy products, building substantial goodwill and making it a household name in the region. The mark is duly registered and enjoys widespread recognition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The first respondent, Vinod Kanji Shah &amp; Nitin Kanji Shah trading as Shalimar Agarbatti Company, secured copyright registration for labels featuring &#8216;Nandini&#8217; in 1985 and obtained registration of the mark &#8216;Nandini&#8217; under No.501980 in 1988, presumably for their goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the trade marks journal, KMF noticed an advertisement of the first respondent&#8217;s application No.694185 in Class 3 for registration of a label mark prominently featuring the word &#8216;Nandini&#8217; (written entirely in small letters, without any prefix, suffix, or distinctive device dominating the word) in respect of agarbattis (incense sticks) and doops (incense cones).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Alarmed by the identical word and near-identical stylisation, KMF filed opposition No.731657, raising grounds under Sections 9 (distinctiveness), 11 (deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion), 11(a) (passing off), and 18 (entitlement to registration) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Deputy Registrar dismissed the opposition on 05.04.2010, holding that &#8216;Nandini&#8217; is a personal name over which no monopoly can be claimed, the goods are entirely different, resemblance is minimal, and no confusion or deception is likely. Aggrieved, KMF appealed the order, which was originally filed before the IPAB and later transferred to the Madras High Court following abolition of the IPAB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-parties-involved\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Parties_Involved\"><\/span>Key Parties Involved<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Party<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (KMF)<\/td><td>Federation of milk producers using the &#8216;Nandini&#8217; mark since 1983.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Shalimar Agarbatti Company<\/td><td>Manufacturer of agarbattis and doops seeking registration of &#8216;Nandini&#8217;.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"grounds-of-opposition\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Grounds_Of_Opposition_Raised_By_KMF\"><\/span>Grounds Of Opposition Raised By KMF<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Section 9 \u2013 Lack of distinctiveness.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Section 11 \u2013 Deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Section 11(a) \u2013 Passing off.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Section 18 \u2013 Lack of entitlement to registration.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The opposition proceedings were conducted before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai (second respondent), who passed the impugned order dated 05.04.2010 rejecting KMF&#8217;s opposition to application No.694185.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appeal against this order was initially instituted before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai, under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Following the abolition of the IPAB and transfer of pending appeals to High Courts, the matter was renumbered as (T)CMA(TM) No.112 of 2023 before the Madras High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-timeline\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Timeline\"><\/span>Procedural Timeline<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Year<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1983<\/td><td>KMF begins use of the &#8216;Nandini&#8217; trademark.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1985<\/td><td>Respondent secures copyright registration for &#8216;Nandini&#8217; labels.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1988<\/td><td>Respondent obtains trademark registration No.501980.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2010<\/td><td>Deputy Registrar dismisses KMF&#8217;s opposition.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2023<\/td><td>Appeal heard by the Madras High Court as (T)CMA(TM) No.112 of 2023.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-and-decision-of-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Decision_of_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Decision of Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court began by noting the undisputed facts: both parties use the word &#8216;Nandini&#8217;, the appellant enjoys long-standing reputation and registration for dairy products, and the first respondent sought registration for agarbattis and doops in Class 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"findings-of-deputy-registrar\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Findings_of_the_Deputy_Registrar\"><\/span>Findings of the Deputy Registrar<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Deputy Registrar rejected the opposition primarily on the following grounds:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>&#8216;Nandini&#8217; is a personal name (derived from Hindu mythology, meaning a divine cow or goddess).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No exclusive right exists over such a name.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The goods are dissimilar.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Resemblance is minimal.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No likelihood of confusion exists.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-precedent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reference_to_Supreme_Court_Precedent\"><\/span>Reference to Supreme Court Precedent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court then analysed the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in <em>Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.<\/em> (2018) 9 SCC 183, where the same appellant opposed registration of &#8216;NANDHINI DELUXE&#8217; for restaurant foodstuffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In that case, the Apex Court upheld registration, finding:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>&#8216;NANDHINI&#8217; was generic.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Goods were dissimilar (no milk products were claimed).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Phonetic similarity was insufficient due to the added word &#8216;DELUXE&#8217;.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Different stylisation and logos reduced similarity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No deceptive similarity when viewed as a whole.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"distinction-drawn-by-madras-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Distinction_Drawn_by_Madras_High_Court\"><\/span>Distinction Drawn by Madras High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Madras High Court distinguished the present case on critical facts: here, the offending mark uses &#8216;Nandini&#8217; identically\u2014without prefix or suffix\u2014and in the exact same all-small-letter style as the appellant&#8217;s prominent usage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Phonetically identical and visually and stylistically near-identical, the mark carries a high risk of deception or association, especially given the appellant&#8217;s massive reputation built over decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"likelihood-of-consumer-confusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Likelihood_of_Consumer_Confusion\"><\/span>Likelihood of Consumer Confusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A consumer familiar with &#8216;Nandini&#8217; dairy products could easily be misled into believing a connection exists with the incense products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court held that the Deputy Registrar failed to consider:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Phonetic identity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Identical stylisation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acquired reputation of the earlier mark.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This failure rendered the impugned order erroneous. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the order dated 05.04.2010 was set aside, and no costs were imposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This judgment settles that phonetic identity combined with near-identical stylisation of a well-known mark can render a later mark deceptively similar under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, warranting refusal of registration even for dissimilar goods in different classes, where there exists a likelihood of confusion, association, or unfair advantage being taken of the earlier mark&#8217;s reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"clarification-of-supreme-court-ruling\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Clarification_of_Supreme_Court_Ruling\"><\/span>Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court clarified that the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in <em>Nandhini Deluxe<\/em> (2018) 9 SCC 183 does not lay down an absolute proposition protecting all uses of &#8216;Nandini\/Nandhini&#8217;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Distinctions in the following aspects are decisive:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Additional elements such as prefixes or suffixes (like &#8216;Deluxe&#8217;).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Different artistic presentation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Logos.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Overall get-up.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where the later mark adopts the dominant word identically in spelling, pronunciation, and writing style without differentiating features, and the earlier mark enjoys substantial goodwill, opposition must succeed to prevent deception or dilution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Title<\/th><td>Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited Vs. Vinod Kanji Shah &amp; Nitin Kanji Shah, Trading as Shalimar Agarbatti Company &amp; Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Order<\/th><td>19.01.2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>(T)CMA(TM) No.112 of 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge<\/th><td>Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court set aside the dismissal of opposition to registration of the mark &#8216;Nandini&#8217; in Class 3 for agarbattis, holding that identical phonetic identity and stylisation create deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion with the appellant&#8217;s well-known &#8216;Nandini&#8217; mark for dairy products, distinguishing it from the Supreme Court&#8217;s Nandhini Deluxe judgment due to absence of differentiating elements like suffix or different get-up.<\/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":[28],"class_list":["post-15075","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-intellectual-property","tag-top-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.6.1 (Yoast SEO v27.6) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Madras High Court rules that phonetic and visual similarity of \u2018Nandini\u2019 justifies refusal of trademark even for unrelated goods.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras High Court rules that phonetic and visual similarity of \u2018Nandini\u2019 justifies refusal of trademark even for unrelated goods.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-01T06:17:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-01T06:22:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/ChatGPT-Image-Jan-31-2026-06_18_27-PM-1024x683.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-01T06:17:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-01T06:22:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1177,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Top News\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\\\/\",\"name\":\"Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-01T06:17:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-01T06:22:44+00:00\",\"description\":\"Madras High Court rules that phonetic and visual similarity of \u2018Nandini\u2019 justifies refusal of trademark even for unrelated goods.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intellectual Property > Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Madras High Court rules that phonetic and visual similarity of \u2018Nandini\u2019 justifies refusal of trademark even for unrelated goods.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods","og_description":"Madras High Court rules that phonetic and visual similarity of \u2018Nandini\u2019 justifies refusal of trademark even for unrelated goods.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-02-01T06:17:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-01T06:22:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/ChatGPT-Image-Jan-31-2026-06_18_27-PM-1024x683.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods","datePublished":"2026-02-01T06:17:57+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-01T06:22:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/"},"wordCount":1177,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Top News"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/","name":"Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-02-01T06:17:57+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-01T06:22:44+00:00","description":"Madras High Court rules that phonetic and visual similarity of \u2018Nandini\u2019 justifies refusal of trademark even for unrelated goods.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intellectual Property > Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15075","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=15075"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15075\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15075"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15075"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15075"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}