{"id":26736,"date":"2026-07-06T05:48:25","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T05:48:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=26736"},"modified":"2026-07-06T05:52:17","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T05:52:17","slug":"kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/","title":{"rendered":"K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity &amp; Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 id=\"h-k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-amp-co-madras-and-another-landmark-supreme-court-judgment-on-deceptive-similarity-and-phonetic-resemblance-in-indian-trademark-law\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"KR_Chinna_Krishna_Chettiar_v_Shri_Ambal_Co_Madras_and_Another_Landmark_Supreme_Court_Judgment_on_Deceptive_Similarity_and_Phonetic_Resemblance_in_Indian_Trademark_Law\"><\/span>K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co., Madras and Another: Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Deceptive Similarity and Phonetic Resemblance in Indian Trademark Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><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 Supreme Court\u2019s landmark judgement in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co., Madras, and Another is one of the foundational decisions in Indian trademark law dealing with the concept of deceptive similarity and phonetic resemblance between competing trademarks. The case arose from a dispute concerning the registration of a trademark for snuff products and required the court to determine whether two marks, though visually different and associated with distinct religious figures, were nevertheless deceptively similar because of their phonetic resemblance.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 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-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#KR_Chinna_Krishna_Chettiar_v_Shri_Ambal_Co_Madras_and_Another_Landmark_Supreme_Court_Judgment_on_Deceptive_Similarity_and_Phonetic_Resemblance_in_Indian_Trademark_Law\" >K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co., Madras and Another: Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Deceptive Similarity and Phonetic Resemblance in Indian Trademark Law<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><\/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\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before the Court<\/a><\/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\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/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\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#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-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#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-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#Case_Information\" >Case Information<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement is significant because it established the principle that trademark comparison is not confined to visual similarity alone. Courts must also consider how marks sound when spoken and how they are remembered by ordinary consumers. The decision emphasises that the law protects consumers against confusion and safeguards the goodwill built by trademark proprietors over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling continues to be cited extensively in trademark litigation involving deceptive similarity, infringement, passing off, and trademark registration disputes. It remains particularly relevant for businesses, trademark owners, branding professionals, intellectual property practitioners, and courts dealing with the protection of brand identity in competitive markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant, K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar, was the sole proprietor of a trading concern known as Radha &amp; Co. The respondents, Shri Ambal &amp; Co., were a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of snuff. Both parties carried on business in Madras and marketed their products both within and outside the State of Madras.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 10 March 1958, the appellant filed Application No. 183961 seeking registration of a trademark in Class 34 in respect of snuff manufactured in Madras. The respondents opposed the application on the ground that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to their already registered trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondents were proprietors of two registered trademarks. One trademark consisted of a label containing a depiction of Goddess Sri Ambal seated on a globe floating on water along with the expression \u201cSri Ambal Parimala Snuff&#8221;. The second trademark consisted of the words \u201cSri Ambal\u201d alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant sought registration of a label featuring the image of Goddess Sri Andal together with the expression \u201cSri Andal&#8221;. The label also contained translations of the words \u201cSri Andal Madras Snuff\u201d in several Indian languages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Before the Registrar of Trade Marks, the respondents argued that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to their registered marks and was therefore barred by Section 12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The Registrar rejected the opposition and held that the words \u201cAmbal\u201d and \u201cAndal\u201d were not sufficiently similar to cause confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondents appealed to the Madras High Court. A learned single judge reversed the Registrar\u2019s decision and held that the words \u201cAmbal\u201d and \u201cAndal\u201d possessed substantial phonetic similarity and were likely to create confusion among consumers. The appellant\u2019s application for registration was consequently rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A letters patent appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by a division bench of the High Court. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trademark containing the expression \u201cSri Andal\u201d was deceptively similar to the respondents\u2019 registered trademarks containing the expression \u201cSri Ambal\u201d and therefore prohibited from registration under Section 12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant argued that the marks were visually different and represented entirely distinct religious figures. According to the appellant, \u201cAmbal\u201d referred to the consort of Lord Shiva, whereas \u201cAndal\u201d referred to a Vaishnavite saint associated with Lord Ranganatha. It was contended that these distinct meanings eliminated any possibility of confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondents contended that the essential and distinctive feature of their trademarks was the word &#8220;Ambal&#8221;. They argued that \u201cAndal\u201d was phonetically so similar to \u201cAmbal\u201d that ordinary consumers would likely be confused or deceived. They further submitted that consumers generally remember the essential feature of a mark rather than its minute visual details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court was therefore required to determine whether the resemblance between the competing marks was sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion among average purchasers of snuff products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court commenced its analysis by examining Section 12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which prohibited registration of a trademark that is identical with or deceptively similar to a registered trademark belonging to another proprietor in respect of the same goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court observed that in determining deceptive similarity, it is necessary to identify the essential and distinctive features of the competing marks. In the respondents\u2019 trademarks, the word \u201cAmbal\u201d constituted the dominant and distinctive feature, while the common prefix \u201cSri\u201d was merely subsidiary in nature. The Court noted that an average consumer with imperfect recollection would remember the distinctive word \u201cAmbal\u201d rather than the common prefix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court referred to the principles governing the comparison of trademarks and emphasised that the question is whether, assuming normal and fair use of both marks, there exists a likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers. Reliance was placed on In the Matter of Broadhead\u2019s Application (1950) 57 RPC 209, which recognised that the assessment must be based upon a comparison of the competing marks as a whole and their distinctive and essential features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Applying this principle, the Court held that the proposed mark would be identified primarily by its distinguishing feature &#8220;Andal&#8221;. It found a striking similarity in sound between \u201cAmbal\u201d and \u201cAndal\u201d and concluded that there was a real danger of confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A particularly important aspect of the judgement is the court&#8217;s recognition that trademark comparison must involve both visual and phonetic considerations. The Court expressly held that the resemblance between two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. Even though the marks lacked visual resemblance, the close phonetic affinity between \u201cAmbal\u201d and \u201cAndal\u201d was sufficient to create confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also discussed Coca-Cola Company of Canada v. Pepsi Cola Company of Canada Ltd (1942) 59 RPC 127. In that case, the distinguishing features of the marks were \u201cCoca\u201d and &#8220;Pepsi&#8221;, while the word \u201cCola\u201d was common to the trade. The court distinguished that decision by noting that in the present case the distinguishing features themselves, \u201cAmbal\u201d and &#8220;Andal&#8221;, were deceptively similar in sound.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Another important precedent considered by the Court was De Cordova and Others v. Vick Chemical Co. (1951) 68 RPC 103. The Court relied upon Lord Radcliffe\u2019s observation that infringement may occur even if only one or more essential features of a registered trademark are appropriated. The decision reinforced the principle that the essential feature of a trademark enjoys protection independent of the mark as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant sought support from the application by Thomas A. Smith Ltd to register a trademark (1913) 30 RPC 363, where the words \u201cLimit\u201d and \u201cSummit\u201d were held not likely to cause confusion because each conveyed a distinct and definite idea. The Supreme Court distinguished this authority. It observed that while informed Hindus in South India might appreciate the theological distinction between Ambal and Andal, many consumers would not. The respondents\u2019 customers included persons belonging to different religions and regions who might not know the distinction between the two goddesses. Such consumers were likely to remember only the sound of the mark and not its precise religious significance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further noted that the words \u201cAmbal\u201d and \u201cAndal\u201d had no direct reference to the quality or character of snuff. Consequently, consumers were unlikely to focus on their religious meanings. Instead, they would remember the marks primarily through sound and general recollection, making confusion more probable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court therefore concluded that the likelihood of confusion was real and substantial and that the High Court had correctly refused registration of the appellant\u2019s mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><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<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement of the Madras High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court held that the proposed trademark containing the expression \u201cSri Andal\u201d was deceptively similar to the respondents\u2019 registered trademarks containing the expression \u201cSri Ambal&#8221;. The phonetic resemblance between the dominant features of the marks created a real likelihood of confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As a consequence, the appellant\u2019s application for registration of the trademark was refused. The appeal was dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><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<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement firmly establishes that deceptive similarity is not confined to visual resemblance. Courts must evaluate trademarks from the perspective of both the eye and the ear, and phonetic similarity alone may be sufficient to refuse registration or establish infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision also clarifies that the essential or dominant feature of a trademark plays a crucial role in determining similarity. Even where labels, devices, or pictorial representations differ, confusion may arise if the distinctive verbal components of the marks sound alike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement further reinforces the principle that trademark disputes must be assessed from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection rather than from the perspective of a careful expert undertaking a detailed comparison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This ruling remains one of the most frequently cited authorities in India on phonetic similarity, deceptive similarity, trademark registration, and consumer confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-information\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Information\"><\/span>Case Information<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Field<\/th><th>Value<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Title of the Case<\/td><td>K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar Vs. Shri Ambal &amp; Co., Madras and Another<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Judgment\/Order<\/td><td>14 April 1969<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>Civil Appeal No. 749 of 1966<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Citations<\/td><td>(1969) 2 SCC 131;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of Court<\/td><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of the Honourable Judge<\/td><td>Justice R.S. Bachawat, Justice S.M. Sikri and Justice V. Ramaswami<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<br><br>Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in the judgement, and the same are for illustrative purposes only. Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.\u00a0\u00a0<br>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/visual-and-phonetic-similarity-of-trademarks-a-comparative-analysis-of-judicial-trends-and-linguistic-consumer-confusion-in-india\/\">Visual and Phonetic Similarity of Trademarks: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Trends and Linguistic Consumer Confusion in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/karnataka-high-court-sri-sri-ravi-shankar-land-encroachment-fir\/\">Karnataka High Court to Hear Sri Sri Ravi Shankar\u2019s Plea to Quash FIR in Alleged Land Encroachment Case: A Complete Legal Analysis<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sc-denies-relief-sri-lankan-tamil-uapa-india-not-dharamshala\/\">Dharamshala is not India: Under the UAPA, the SC denies relief to Sri Lankan Tamil<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/what-happens-if-your-trademark-is-similar-to-an-existing-brand\/\">What Happens If Your Trademark is Similar to an Existing Brand?<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sri-om-sales-v-abhay-kumar-high-courts-cannot-quash-cheque-dishonour-cases-through-pre-trial-inquiry\/\">Sri Om Sales v. Abhay Kumar: High Courts Cannot Quash Cheque Dishonour Cases Through Pre-Trial Inquiry<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co., Madras and Another: Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Deceptive Similarity and Phonetic Resemblance in Indian Trademark Law Introduction The Supreme Court\u2019s landmark judgement in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co., Madras, and Another is one of the foundational decisions in Indian trademark law<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","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,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149],"class_list":["post-26736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-intellectual-property","tag-intellectual-property"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.9 (Yoast SEO v27.9) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity &amp; Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Discover the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 1969 judgement in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co. on deceptive similarity and phonetic resemblance between trademarks. Learn how \u201cAmbal\u201d vs \u201cAndal\u201d shaped Indian trademark law.\" \/>\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\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity &amp; Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Discover the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 1969 judgement in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co. on deceptive similarity and phonetic resemblance between trademarks. Learn how \u201cAmbal\u201d vs \u201cAndal\u201d shaped Indian trademark law.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-07-06T05:48:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-06T05:52:17+00:00\" \/>\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=\"8 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\\\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity &amp; Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-06T05:48:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-06T05:52:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1760,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\\\/\",\"name\":\"K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity &amp; Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-06T05:48:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-06T05:52:17+00:00\",\"description\":\"Discover the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 1969 judgement in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co. on deceptive similarity and phonetic resemblance between trademarks. Learn how \u201cAmbal\u201d vs \u201cAndal\u201d shaped Indian trademark law.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity & Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks\"}]},{\"@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":"K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity &amp; Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Discover the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 1969 judgement in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co. on deceptive similarity and phonetic resemblance between trademarks. Learn how \u201cAmbal\u201d vs \u201cAndal\u201d shaped Indian trademark law.","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\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity &amp; Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks","og_description":"Discover the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 1969 judgement in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co. on deceptive similarity and phonetic resemblance between trademarks. Learn how \u201cAmbal\u201d vs \u201cAndal\u201d shaped Indian trademark law.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-06T05:48:25+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-06T05:52:17+00:00","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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity &amp; Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks","datePublished":"2026-07-06T05:48:25+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-06T05:52:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/"},"wordCount":1760,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Intellectual Property"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/","name":"K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity &amp; Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-06T05:48:25+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-06T05:52:17+00:00","description":"Discover the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 1969 judgement in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co. on deceptive similarity and phonetic resemblance between trademarks. Learn how \u201cAmbal\u201d vs \u201cAndal\u201d shaped Indian trademark law.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kr-chinna-krishna-chettiar-v-shri-ambal-co-deceptive-similarity-phonetic-resemblance\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co: Supreme Court\u2019s Landmark Ruling on Deceptive Similarity & Phonetic Resemblance in Trademarks"}]},{"@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\/26736","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=26736"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26736\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27396,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26736\/revisions\/27396"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}