Mere phonetic similarity between trademarks is not sufficient to make out a case of infringement

Delhi High Court while refusing to grant relief of interlocutory injunction has held that mere phonetic similarity between trademarks is insufficient to make out a case of infringement.

The facts of the case are that the plaintiff is seeking an injunction against the defendant from manufacturing or marketing its product using a trademark named “The Mumum Co…Very very real”. Plaintiff’s trademarks “MUMMUM” intended for consumption by infants below the age of 6 months and the defendants' trademark reads as “The MUMUM Co ... very very very real” intended for consumption for children below 2 years of age. Both trademarks are so completely dissimilar both visually as well as in their whole composition. Products of plaintiffs and defendants catering different, non-overlapping consumer segments.

There is a complete distinction between the trademarks of the plaintiff and the defendant, except for the phonetic similarity between “MUMMUM” and “MUMUM”, no prima facie case of infringement, by the defendant, of the plaintiff’s trademark, can be said to exist, the possibility of the defendant passing off its product as those of the plaintiff also stands discountenanced by the difference in packing, between the said products.

The competing trademarks being completely distinct, visually and otherwise, the mere phonetic similarity between the words “MUMMUM” and “MUMUM” is, insufficient to make out a case of infringement. Plaintiff has not been able to make out a case for restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing its products. Given the aforesaid discussion, interlocutory injunction as prayed in the application cannot be granted.

Counsel: Ms. Shwetasree Majumdar, Mr. Prithvi Singh and Mr. Karan Kamra, Rakesh Sinha and Mr. Anand Srivastava.