Visual Similarity, Marketplace Confusion, and Trademark Rights

Fact Summary

The dispute is between Ifra Sheikh, acting through a power of attorney and trading as Rocket Bidi Works, and Ms Mobile Bidi Traders, a partnership firm. The plaintiff, Ms Mobile Bidi Traders, has been making, marketing, and selling handmade bidis and matchboxes since 2005 and claims to have a registered trademark “Online Bidi” (registered on 04.01.2020, application dated 31.08.2017) and copyright over its label design (registered 13.06.2024).

The plaintiff asserts that the design and blue color scheme of its packaging—known as “Asmani Puda” in the market—sets its product apart, especially as consumers are mainly workers and laborers from less educated backgrounds, making them prone to confusion. The defendant, Ifra Sheikh, sells bidis under the brand “ATM Bidi No.07.” The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s color scheme and packaging design are deceptively similar to their own, causing a likelihood of confusion among ordinary purchasers who recognize products by appearance rather than name.

Procedural Details

Ms Mobile Bidi Traders filed Trademark Suit No.05 of 2024 in the District Court, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from using confusingly similar marks or packaging. On 12.08.2025, the District Judge-12, Nagpur, granted this temporary injunction, leading the defendant to file the present appeal before the High Court.

Appellant’s Arguments

• The two products are not similar, especially after the defendant altered its design on 01.07.2024 to avoid further disputes.
• The plaintiff’s packaging allegedly lacked the statutory health warning required by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008.
• Therefore, the plaintiff should not be granted equitable relief of injunction.

Earlier, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on this ground was dismissed by the trial court.

Central Dispute

The central issue was whether the defendant’s packaging was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, potentially misleading consumers and infringing the plaintiff’s registered trademark and copyright.

Defendant’s Stand

• The new packaging design was not similar.
• There were sufficient distinguishing features between the two products.
• Statutory non-compliance with health warnings on plaintiff’s packaging should disentitle the plaintiff from relief.

Plaintiff’s Stand

• The broad similarities in appearance, particularly the blue color scheme, were likely to confuse consumers.
• Consumers in this market segment are not generally literate or brand-aware.
• The existing health warnings on retail bundles met the statutory requirements.

Detailed Reasoning and Discussion

The court observed that the end consumer of bidis—typically workers or laborers—tends to identify brands by their packaging and overall appearance rather than names or subtle design differences.

• Both parties’ bidi bundles used a blue conical design.
• Both included health warnings on the retail bundles (even if missing on the wholesale packets).

The trial court rightly found that similarities in color scheme and visual presentation could be deceptive for such consumers.

Health Warning Argument

In response to the defendant’s contention that missing health warnings should disentitle relief, the court referred to the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and its implementing rules.

The court found that although the wholesale outer package lacked the warning, the retail bundle carried it. Therefore, even if there was a procedural lapse, it did not justify denial of trademark protection. Relief could not be refused unless statutory authorities took separate action against the plaintiff. The intent of these laws is consumer protection, not a defense strategy in trademark litigation.

Relevant Precedent

The court relied on Ms Hiralal Industries Ltd. v. S.M. Associates and others (AIR 1984 Bom 218), which held that even where distinguishing features exist, overall similarities—especially from the viewpoint of an ordinary consumer—are decisive in confusion analysis.

The court dismissed the argument on sales figures, noting that the plaintiff’s registered rights pertained to the blue-labeled packaging, which was central to the dispute.

Arm-Chair Rule

The appellate court reiterated the “arm-chair rule”—how a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection perceives the products. The focus remained on protecting consumers influenced by broad visual similarities in the marketplace.

Exercise of Discretion

The court held that interference with a discretionary order like a temporary injunction is warranted only in cases of clear error or legal mistake. No such error was found here.

Judgment

The High Court upheld the trial court’s order and found no error in its approach. It held:

• The plaintiff’s mark “Online Bidi” and associated blue-colored trade dress are protected under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957.
• Violations of packaging laws under the 2003 Act or 2008 Rules only result in statutory penalties, not automatic disentitlement from trademark relief.
• Section 15 of the 2003 Act allows conditional release of goods if labeling issues are corrected.
• The principle from Hiralal Industries Ltd. v. S.M. Associates—that broad similarities prevail—was reaffirmed.

Therefore, the temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar trade dress was justified.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s temporary injunction against the defendant’s use of packaging and branding similar to the plaintiff’s was upheld. The court made no order as to costs.

Case Details

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)
High Court of Delhi