Whether the mark, “Lakshmandhara”, was likely to deceive and cause confusion under section 8 and section 10 of the Trademark Act?
Whether there was any acquiescence for “Lakshmandhara”, as to bring it under special circumstances, mentioned in section 10(2) of the Trademark Act?
The rule of law applied in the case of Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satyadeo AIR 1963 is that trademarks which are deceptively similar to existing trademarks are not registrable. This is to protect consumers from confusion and protect the rights of trademark owners. The standard of comparison between similar trademarks is to be adopted by judging the resemblance from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.