Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{186723,
        author = {ImranKhan A},
        title = {VISUAL AND PHONETIC SIMILARITY OF TRADEMARKS: STUDY OF JUDICIAL TRENDS IN INDIA},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2025},
        volume = {12},
        number = {6},
        pages = {2695-2704},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=186723},
        abstract = {In the modern global marketplace, trademarks play a pivotal role in establishing a brand’s identity, protecting consumer trust, and ensuring fair competition. However, the increasing commercial value of trademarks has led to frequent cases of misuse and infringement, particularly through the creation of deceptively similar marks. This study critically examines the judicial interpretation of visual and phonetic similarity in trademark disputes under Indian law, with comparative insights from U.S. jurisprudence. It traces the historical evolution of trademark protection in India, analyses the legal framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and explores the concept of deceptive similarity as defined under Section 2(1)(h). Through a detailed study of landmark judgments—Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd., and others—the research identifies the judicial principles used to determine similarity based on overall impression, phonetic resemblance, and consumer perception. The study concludes that Indian courts have progressively evolved a balanced approach, emphasising the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection while safeguarding both business interests and public interest. The paper also highlights defences such as fair use and parody, and contrasts the Indian position with U.S. standards of “likelihood of confusion.”},
        keywords = {Trademark Law; Deceptive Similarity; Phonetic Similarity; Visual Similarity; Trade Marks Act 1999; Judicial Trends; Infringement; Passing Off; Likelihood of Confusion; Intellectual Property Rights; Consumer Perception.},
        month = {November},
        }