{"id":22740,"date":"2026-04-27T06:06:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T06:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=22740"},"modified":"2026-04-27T06:10:23","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T06:10:23","slug":"confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/","title":{"rendered":"Confusion is assessed from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection"},"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>In a clear victory for brand owners protecting their established trademarks, the Delhi High Court on 8 April 2026 ordered the cancellation and removal of two trademark registrations for the mark \u201cGOLDI\u201d (label and logo) belonging to Jai Shiv Oil Industries and its assignee. The court found the marks deceptively similar to the petitioner\u2019s long-standing and well-known \u201cGOLDIEE\u201d trademark used for spices, edible oils, and related food products since 1980. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}<\/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\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#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\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#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\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Sales_Growth_Overview\" >Sales Growth Overview<\/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\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Respondent_Trademark_Details\" >Respondent Trademark Details<\/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\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Reasoning_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Trademark_Similarity_Analysis\" >Trademark Similarity Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Comparison_of_Goods\" >Comparison of Goods<\/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\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Key_Observations\" >Key Observations<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Relevant_Legal_Provisions\" >Relevant Legal Provisions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Key_Judgments_Discussed\" >Key Judgments Discussed<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Fybros_Electric_Case\" >Fybros Electric Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#FDC_Limited_Case\" >FDC Limited Case<\/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\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/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\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/confusion-is-assessed-from-the-perspective-of-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the respondent\u2019s adoption of \u201cGOLDI\u201d was likely to cause confusion among consumers due to phonetic, visual, and structural similarities, especially in the Hindi script, where the dominant elements appeared nearly identical. The petitioner\u2019s prior adoption, use, and registration, combined with substantial goodwill and sales, outweighed the respondent\u2019s later registrations. The respondents failed to appear or file any reply, leaving the petitioner\u2019s evidence unrebutted. This judgement underscores that prior users and registrants with strong reputations can successfully seek rectification of confusingly similar marks even in related goods classes, protecting consumers from deception and safeguarding established brands.<\/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>Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd., a Kanpur-based company engaged in manufacturing and marketing spices, edible oils, and allied food products, claimed rights in the trademark \u201cGOLDIEE\u201d and its formative variants. The company traced its adoption of the mark through predecessors to 1980 and had been using it continuously for decades. \u201cGOLDIEE\u201d also formed part of the company\u2019s trade name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner held multiple registrations for \u201cGOLDIEE\u201d labels and word marks in Classes 3, 29, and 30, with the oldest dating back to 1 October 1980. It built significant goodwill through high-quality products, extensive advertising in print and visual media, distributor networks across India, and certifications like ISO 9001:2000 and HACCP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sales-growth\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sales_Growth_Overview\"><\/span>Sales Growth Overview<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Year<\/th><th>Sales<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>2000-01<\/td><td>Rs 43 crores<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2012-13<\/td><td>Nearly Rs 297 crores<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Supported by promotional campaigns, including sampling at major marathons and government awards for excellence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"respondent-trademarks\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondent_Trademark_Details\"><\/span>Respondent Trademark Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Registration No. 945240 \u2013 Class 29 (Mustard Oil)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Registration No. 2023762 \u2013 Class 31 (Oil Cake for Animals)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Claimed user date: 1 January 2000<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner alleged dishonest adoption, deceptive similarity, and fraud on the Trade Marks Registry.<\/p>\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<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Filed under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Originally before IPAB (later transferred to Delhi High Court)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Case Numbers: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 392\/2021 and 393\/2021<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Respondents failed to appear \u2013 proceeded ex parte<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner placed extensive evidence, including registrations, advertisements, invoices, and sales turnover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"similarity-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trademark_Similarity_Analysis\"><\/span>Trademark Similarity Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Phonetically identical<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Visually and structurally similar<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Conceptually indistinguishable<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Hindi script similarity increases confusion<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"goods-comparison\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparison_of_Goods\"><\/span>Comparison of Goods<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Petitioner<\/th><th>Respondent<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Spices, Foodstuffs (Classes 29 &amp; 30)<\/td><td>Edible Oil, Oil Cake (Classes 29 &amp; 31)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Trade channels, retail outlets, and consumer bases overlapped significantly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-observations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Observations\"><\/span>Key Observations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>An average consumer with imperfect recollection may be misled<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Strong goodwill established prior rights<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No bona fide use shown by respondent<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Suspicion of dishonest adoption<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-provisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Relevant_Legal_Provisions\"><\/span>Relevant Legal Provisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Section 9:<\/strong> Distinctiveness<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Section 11:<\/strong> Deceptive Similarity<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Section 47:<\/strong> Non-use \/ Lack of bona fide intention<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-judgments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Judgments_Discussed\"><\/span>Key Judgments Discussed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"fybros-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Fybros_Electric_Case\"><\/span>Fybros Electric Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>This Delhi High Court decision clarified that trademark coverage is based on the goods listed in the registration certificate, not merely on proven actual use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"fdc-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"FDC_Limited_Case\"><\/span>FDC Limited Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Explained allied or cognate goods based on trade connection, complementary use, and customer overlap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Cancellation of \u201cGOLDI\u201d trademark registrations<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Removal from Register of Trade Marks<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Registrar directed to comply within six weeks<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No costs awarded<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Prior use overrides later registrations<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Minor spelling differences do not avoid infringement<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dominant features of mark are decisive<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consumer perception is key (not expert comparison)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Allied goods can create confusion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Unrebutted evidence carries strong weight<\/li>\n<\/ul>\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>Field<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Case Title<\/td><td>Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jai Shiv Oil Industries and Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Order<\/td><td>08 April 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 392\/2021<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Neutral Citation<\/td><td>2026:DHC:2935<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Court<\/td><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judge<\/td><td>Justice Tushar Rao Gedela<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Author:<\/strong> Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction In a clear victory for brand owners protecting their established trademarks, the Delhi High Court on 8 April 2026 ordered the cancellation and removal of two trademark registrations for the mark \u201cGOLDI\u201d (label and logo) belonging to Jai Shiv Oil Industries and its assignee. The court found the marks deceptively similar to the petitioner\u2019s<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":22739,"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":[5873],"tags":[28,5969],"class_list":{"0":"post-22740","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-trademark-law","8":"tag-top-news","9":"tag-trademark-laws"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Capture-3.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22740","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=22740"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22740\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22927,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22740\/revisions\/22927"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22739"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}