Skip to content

CS Professional · Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · Trademarks

Arjun Foods registered the mark 'CRUNCHO' for namkeen. A rival, Bhavna Snacks, sells namkeen under an identical mark 'CRUNCHO'. In an infringement suit, what is the court's position on likelihood of confusion?

The court shall presume likelihood of confusion. Where the mark is identical and the goods are identical, section 29(2)(c) applies and section 29(3) requires the court to presume confusion on the part of the public, so the proprietor need not prove it, and reputation is not required.

  1. AThe court must presume likelihood of confusion, because the identical mark is used for identical goods under section 29(2)(c) read with section 29(3)Correct
  2. BArjun Foods must always lead evidence of confusion among consumers
  3. CConfusion is presumed only if the mark has a reputation in India
  4. DNo presumption arises because the marks are used by different traders

Explanation

Section 29(2)(c) covers identity of mark and identity of goods. Section 29(3) says that in such a case the court shall presume likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Reputation is relevant to section 29(4), not here.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Trademarks shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise TrademarksFree diagnostic mock

More Trademarks questions