Transliteration Conflicts For Indian- Language Trademarks
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 10
- 1 min read
Nikita Banerjee, LL.B., Jindal Global Law School
ABSTRACT
Trademark marks in India’s multilingual market frequently pass through more than one script and language. An urgent problem is presented when a mark in an Indian script (e.g., the Hindi word “अमलू ”) exists alongside its Latin script counterpart (“Amul”), resulting in shared pronunciation but differentiated visual look. This study investigates how Indian law of trademarks deals with the issue of confusion arising from such script- translated marks. The examination makes use of the provision under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 11(1) (relative grounds of refusal for confusing similarity) and Section 9(2)(a) (absolute ground against deceptive or confusing marks). It is seen that Indian courts as well as the Trade Marks Registry have always protected against such script confusion, viewing phonetically similar marks in other scripts as being likely to cause confusion among consumers. In particular, direct translations (words with the same meaning in two different languages) have been litigated in traditional cases, whereas the situation of pure transliteration (same sound, other script) has rarely been directly mentioned as a special category, albeit being implicitly included by the law. From an examination of Indian legislation, test practices, and judicial rulings, this paper explains the principles used to address transliteration disputes and concludes that the existing system necessarily encompasses such disputes under the broader principle of deceptive similarity. The bottom line is that Indian trademark offices must keep rejecting or cancelling phonetically equivalent marks in different scripts to avoid confusing consumers, while not ruling out good faith or honest concurrent use defences in exceptional situations.
