Trademark | Doctrine Of ‘Initial Interest Confusion’ Entails That There Is Confusion Only At Initial Stage And Not When Sale Is Completed: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the doctrine of ‘initial interest confusion’ entails that there is confusion only at the initial stage and there is no confusion when the transaction for sale and purchase is completed. The Division Bench was considering an appeal against a single judge's decision declining to grant interim relief to Forest Essentials, an Ayurvedic cosmetics, skincare, and perfume company, in a trademark dispute against Baby Forest, a company specializing in Ayurvedic baby care products.

The Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju expressed prima facie disagreement with the single-judge's interpretation of the doctrine of 'initial interest confusion', which led to the denial of relief to Forest Essentials.

The Bench observed, "Prima facie, we find merit in the appellant’s contention that the learned single-judge has erred in its interpretation of the doctrine of ‘initial interest confusion’ to entail persistence of confusion till a stage that the transaction is consummated. The doctrine of ‘initial interest confusion’ entails that there is confusion only at the initial stage and there is no confusion when the transaction for sale and purchase is completed. The customers are in no doubt of the product they are buying when the sale is completed. The confusion is only at the initial stage".

Consequently, the Division Bench issued notice to Baby Forest regarding Forest Essentials' appeal against the single-judge order and scheduled further hearing for September 9.

Pertinently, on May 15, Justice Anish Dayal had declined interim relief to Forest Essentials, emphasizing that the term 'forest' is generic and Forest Essentials could not assert dominance over a part of its trademark without separate registration.

Regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between the products of both companies, the single-judge had noted significant dissimilarities in packaging and logo, downplaying the possibility of confusion among consumers. The single judge had also dismissed the significance of a few social media references and Google search suggestions as insufficient evidence of widespread confusion.

The Court had remarked, "For plaintiff to claim monopoly over the mark ‘FOREST’, which is itself a commonly used word, therefore may not be tenable." However, the undertaking by the defendant company, Baby Forest, to refrain from using the marks 'SAUNDARYA' and 'BABY ESSENTIALS' will remain in effect.

Subsequently, Forest Essentials appealed to the Division Bench challenging the single-judge's decision.

Cause Title: Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocates Swathi Sukumar, Ayesha Guhathakurta, Anjuri Saxena

Respondent: Senior Advocate Jayant K Mehta, Advocates Sandeep Chatterjee, Tanya Arora, Jaydeep Roy

Click here to read/download the Order