deceptive similarity — Indian case law & digests

Supreme CourtSupreme Court of India

Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-op Milk (2018): No monopoly over a whole class of goods

The Supreme Court held that the restaurant mark NANDHINI was not deceptively similar to the dairy federation's NANDINI, because the goods, trade channels and consumers differed. A proprietor cannot monopolise an entire class of goods, only the goods it actually deals in.

Valkya Editorial·23 Jun 2026·6 min

High CourtHigh Court of Bombay

Alkem Laboratories v. Numen Pharma (2026): ALCIPRO and ACIPROX are confusingly alike, and a 'bare possibility' of confusion suffices for medicines

On 8 June 2026 the Bombay High Court restrained Numen Pharma from using the mark 'ACIPROX', holding it phonetically similar to Alkem's registered 'ALCIPRO'. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh applied the heightened pharmaceutical confusion standard — the bare possibility of confusion is enough to injunct — and refused to dissect the rival marks syllable by syllable.

Valkya Editorial·22 Jun 2026·6 min