ANTI-DISSECTION RULE UNDER TRADEMARKS LAW
The Anti-Dissection rule is a theory in trademark law that says that rather than analyzing each mark separately, any comparison between two potentially conflicting marks must be made in its entirety, or how consumers perceive the marks in the market. Deceptive similarity is determined based on the visual, phonetic, and structural similarities between the marks in question, as is a well-established legal principle. The “Rule of Anti-Dissection” is used when comparing two composite marks’ similarity. Sections 15 and 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the “Act”) have captured the spirit of this rule.
Marks should be evaluated using all of the criteria. However, this does not preclude a look at the dominant and subordinate characteristics of the mark in order to determine which aspects have the greatest impact on customers. The idea that a composite mark’s combined effect will be more impressive to a typical potential customer than its parts is the foundation of this principle.
Meaning of the Rule-
An up-front interpretation of Sections 15 and 17 of the Act demonstrates that the legislative intent behind the provisions is that a composite trademark should be viewed as a whole, or as an indivisible unit, and that the Proprietor has no exclusive right over a part of the composite mark unless that part is separately protected. The basic assumption that an ordinary potential buyer would be impressed by the composite mark as a whole rather than its component parts is the foundation of the anti-dissection rule. As a result, it promotes the idea that “technical gymnastics” should not be used to try to find small differences between marks that are in conflict.
Case Laws-
This idea was first proposed in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceuticals. At the point when the defendant’s use of the allegedly infringing mark is shown to be “in the course of trade,” the court ruled, the question of whether there has been an infringement is chosen by comparing the two marks. It means a lot to remember that the inquiry’s definitive objective is to determine whether or not the defendant’s imprint, taken all in all, is confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered imprint. It’s important to keep in mind that the inquiry’s ultimate goal is to determine whether or not the defendant’s mark, taken as a whole, is confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark.
In the recent case of PhonePe v. BharatPe, the Delhi High Court applied the rule of anti-dissection. It stated that the plaintiff has not registered ‘PhonePe’ as two different marks rather it must be seen as a whole. The marks ‘PhonePe’ and ‘BharatPe’ cannot be dissected for suit for infringement as the word ‘Pe’ is merely misspelling of the word ‘Pay’ and the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over it.
the Delhi High Court in the case of South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc while stating that the rule of anti-dissection is the primary parameter that is to be followed, observed that it is permissible to accord more or less importance or ‘dominance’ to a particular portion or element of a mark in cases of composite marks. It was observed by the Court that both the elements constituting the mark of the Plaintiff, i.e., ‘HAAGEN’ and ‘DAZS’ are equally dominant and are liable to be accorded sufficient protection under the legal framework. An injunction was granted against the Defendant who was using the mark D’DAAZ.
Conclusion-
To conclude one might say that the essential basis for assessing similarity between two trademarks is the probability of confusion and there is no straightjacket rule that can be depended on to assess the confusion amongst consumers. The same would rely upon the novel facts of each case and therefore it would prompt arbitrariness and absurdity on the off chance that one rule is given prominence over the other. Given the absence of a uniform strategy for making this determination, courts have habitually withdrawn from the anti-dissection rule for a rule of dominant feature. The courts in some cases have favored the rule of anti-dissection over the rule of dominant imprint whereas in other cases it has been the other strategy for getting around. The opinion of the judiciary on the rule of anti-dissection in trademark regulation has been conflicting.
