Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 JULY 2006

Deception and Vernacular Lingo: Is confusion the Catch Point?

Lex Orbis
Explore more from Lex Orbis

Linguistic vibrance and colloquial jargons are colourful add-ons to the cultural flora of a region. But where technical aspects such as registration of trademarks are concerned, vernaculars often tend to inculcate deceptiveness amongst the brands.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Author LinkedIn connections

Linguistic vibrance and colloquial jargons are colourful add-ons to the cultural flora of a region. But where technical aspects such as registration of trademarks are concerned, vernaculars often tend to inculcate deceptiveness amongst the brands. Trademark law in this regard emphasizes that the similarity must result in a likelihood of confusion or deception. This is certain amongst products /goods belonging to similar trade lines or bearing similar marks.

The case at hand, M/s Ram Gopal Soap Factory v. Godrej Soaps Ltd. & Ors. 2006 (32) PTC 847 (IPAB) is a standpoint in the matter.

Soap manufacturers, M/s Ram Gopal Soap Factory, Jaipur, filed an application to register the trademark "CHABI" (in the Devanagari script) which was put to use on its washing soap, for sale in Jaipur and Pali districts in Rajasthan. The applicants claimed to be users of the mark since 1978. On the publication of their application in the Trade Marks Journal, M/s Godrej Soaps Limited, gave a notice of

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law