22 days left — Registration closes 2026-10-31.

Legal Reasoning · 5 questions · about 1 min to read

Marks and Confusion

Read the passage, answer the questions, then open each answer to check it. The explanation says why the right option is right.

The passage

Read, then answer

A trade mark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another. Registration confers on the proprietor the exclusive right to use the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, and the right to sue for infringement.

Infringement is committed by a person who, without authority, uses in the course of trade a mark identical with or deceptively similar to the registered mark, in relation to identical or similar goods, where such use is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public or is likely to be taken as indicating a connection with the proprietor. Where both the mark and the goods are identical, confusion is presumed. A mark is deceptively similar to another if it so nearly resembles it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion; the comparison is made from the perspective of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, looking at the marks as wholes and not by placing them side by side and cataloguing differences.

Certain uses do not infringe. Use of one's own name or the name of one's place of business in good faith is protected, as is use of a mark to describe the character or quality of goods, and use to indicate the intended purpose of goods such as accessories or spare parts, provided such use is honest and does not take unfair advantage of the mark's reputation.

An unregistered mark is not protected by an action for infringement, but its user may sue in passing off. There the claimant must establish goodwill attaching to the mark, a misrepresentation by the defendant likely to deceive, and damage or likelihood of damage. Passing off protects the goodwill; infringement protects the registration.

  1. Q1. "GLOWEL" is registered for hair oil. A rival begins selling hair oil under "GLOWELL" in similar packaging. On the principles above:

    1. There is infringement, since a mark so nearly resembling the registered mark as to be likely to cause confusion among consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection is deceptively similar
    2. There is no infringement, since the marks are spelt differently
    3. There is no infringement unless actual instances of confusion are proved
    4. There is infringement only if the rival's goods are of inferior quality
    Show answer

    Answer: A. There is infringement, since a mark so nearly resembling the registered mark as to be likely to cause confusion among consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection is deceptively similar

    Deceptive similarity is judged from the standpoint of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, comparing the marks as wholes. A single additional letter in an otherwise identical mark used on identical goods in similar packaging satisfies that test; proof of actual confusion is not required.

  2. Q2. A company manufactures ink cartridges and labels them "Compatible with ZENTECH P-450 printers". ZENTECH is a registered mark of the printer manufacturer. The labelling is accurate and the cartridges carry the maker's own prominent brand. On the principles above, this use is:

    1. Infringing, because a registered mark has been used without authority
    2. Infringing, because the goods are sold in the same trade channels
    3. Not infringing, because honest use of a mark to indicate the intended purpose of accessories or spare parts is protected
    4. Not infringing, because ink cartridges are not similar goods to printers
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Not infringing, because honest use of a mark to indicate the intended purpose of accessories or spare parts is protected

    Honest use of a mark to indicate the intended purpose of goods such as accessories or spare parts is protected, provided it does not take unfair advantage of the mark's reputation. The statement is accurate and the maker's own brand is prominent.

  3. Q3. Bhaskar Naik has sold sweets from his family shop under the name "Naik's" for years without registering it. Another trader registers "NAIK" for sweets and sues him. Bhaskar has traded honestly under his own surname throughout. On the principles above, his strongest defence is that:

    1. Prior use always defeats a later registration in every case
    2. Sweets are not goods within the meaning of trade mark law
    3. A surname is incapable of registration as a trade mark
    4. Use of one's own name in good faith in the course of trade is protected
    Show answer

    Answer: D. Use of one's own name in good faith in the course of trade is protected

    Use of one's own name or the name of one's place of business in good faith in the course of trade does not infringe. Bhaskar has traded honestly under his surname throughout.

  4. Q4. "MERIDIAN" is an unregistered mark used for twelve years by a stationery maker with a substantial reputation in the region. A newcomer begins selling notebooks as "MERIDIAN" and customers write to the original maker complaining of quality. On the principles above, the original maker:

    1. Has no remedy, since the mark is unregistered
    2. May sue for infringement, since long use is equivalent to registration
    3. May sue in passing off, establishing goodwill, misrepresentation and damage
    4. May only apply to have the newcomer's use recorded as honest concurrent use
    Show answer

    Answer: C. May sue in passing off, establishing goodwill, misrepresentation and damage

    An unregistered mark is not protected by infringement proceedings, but its user may sue in passing off on proof of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. Long regional reputation and misdirected complaints establish all three.

  5. Q5. A trader sells tea in packaging bearing a mark identical to a mark registered for tea by another proprietor. On the principles above, the proprietor:

    1. Need not prove likelihood of confusion, since it is presumed where both mark and goods are identical
    2. Must still lead evidence that the public was in fact confused
    3. Must first prove goodwill and misrepresentation as in passing off
    4. Can succeed only if the trader's use was dishonest
    Show answer

    Answer: A. Need not prove likelihood of confusion, since it is presumed where both mark and goods are identical

    Where both the mark and the goods are identical, confusion is presumed and the proprietor need not prove likelihood of confusion separately.

Prepare with CLATcoach, free

A free account gives you a full mock, a past paper for every exam, the daily questions, twelve Legal GK headings and a report on where you stand.

Create a free account