Similarity Isn’t Enough: The Hard Truth About Trademark Disputes

In passing off, it is not enough to show similarity. The plaintiff must establish misrepresentation, reputation, and damage.

"Courts do not operate on assumptions of reputation, they require proof."

A recent Madras High Court judgment (T. T. Krishnamachari & Co. & Ors. vs. Godrej Agrovet Limited) offers a sharp reminder that trademark law is often misunderstood in practice.

At first glance, the dispute seemed straightforward where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s mark “YUMMIEZ” was deceptively similar to their mark “YUMMIES,” both being used in the food industry. Since, phonetically, the marks were nearly identical, the instinctive assumption would be that confusion is inevitable and therefore, liability on the defendant shall follow.

However, the Court DISAGREED.

While analyzing the arguments brought on record, the Hon’ble High Court reiterated a principle that is frequently overlooked in commercial strategy which is that in a passing off action, ‘similarity’ is only one piece of the puzzle. The plaintiff must establish the classical trinity i.e. misrepresentation, reputation, and damage, and this is precisely where the present case collapsed.

The plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate sufficient reputation or goodwill in their mark, and the documents that they relied upon including the photocopied invoices and limited advertising material did not meet the evidentiary threshold required by the Court. In the absence of proven goodwill, the question of misrepresentation simply did not arise in a meaningful way, thereby failing at its core.

Another critical aspect was the Court’s approach to consumer perception. Instead of isolating the word marks, the Court examined the overall packaging and trade dress of the competing products, wherein the defendant’s products prominently featured the “Godrej” brand, distinct colour schemes, and a different visual identity. Accordingly, the Court found no attempt to misrepresent origin, either intentionally or otherwise.

At this juncture, what actually makes this judgment relevant is the overall message and understanding it sends to businesses. It is pertinent to understand that the trademark protection is not merely a function of registration or similarity, but it is deeply tied to how a brand is built, positioned, and substantiated through evidence, because Courts do not operate on assumptions of reputation, they require proof.

A brand built around descriptive or commonly used terms may work commercially, but it creates inherent limitations in enforcement, a strategic oversight that many founders and businesses make. Without strong evidence of distinctiveness and market recognition, legal protection becomes fragile, and perhaps the most striking detail is that this dispute spanned nearly two decades, only to culminate in dismissal with costs imposed on the plaintiffs.

That, in itself, is the real takeaway.

Trademark disputes are not won by how similar marks look or sound, but they are won by how well a business can demonstrate ownership of reputation in the marketplace, otherwise, even the strongest-looking case can quietly fall apart.