Confusingly Similar Trademark Examples to Know

In global marketplace, brands serve as valuable identifiers that communicate trust, quality, and reputation to consumers.

As businesses invest time, money, and creativity into building and nurturing their trademarks, it becomes increasingly important to protect these valuable assets against infringement or dilution.

One of the key concepts at the heart of trademark law is the idea of “confusing similarity.” This concept governs how courts and trademark offices determine whether two marks are so similar that they are likely to cause confusion among consumers about the source of the goods or services being offered.

This article will look deeply into the notion of confusing similarity, exploring how courts evaluate it, the factors influencing these determinations, and some well-known examples from real-world legal disputes.

What is Confusing Similarity?

Confusing similarity refers to a situation where a later trademark is so close in appearance, sound, meaning, or commercial impression to a preexisting trademark that consumers might mistakenly believe that the two marks originate from the same source—or that there is some business connection between them.

The presence of confusion can erode the distinctiveness and goodwill associated with the earlier mark, harm the reputation of the business behind it, and mislead consumers as to what they are buying.

Notably, the question is not whether the marks are identical. Instead, the inquiry focuses on whether the similarity between the two marks—as used on related goods or services—is close enough to create a likelihood of confusion in the minds of ordinary consumers. This standard can vary slightly by jurisdiction.

In the United States, for instance, courts typically look at what an “ordinary consumer” who is not too careful but not wholly inattentive might think.

In the European Union, the approach is generally similar, though the nature of the EU’s unified trademark system can affect how national courts apply the rules.

Factors Considered in Determining Confusing Similarity

No single factor decides the matter of confusing similarity.

Although the exact set of factors may differ slightly across jurisdictions, common themes include:

Similarity of the Marks in Appearance, Sound, and Meaning: The visual and phonetic resemblance of the marks is often the starting point. Even if spelled differently, two marks might still sound alike (e.g., “Seiko” and “Psycho”) and create similar impressions. The conceptual similarity—whether the marks evoke the same idea or image—also matters.

Relatedness of the Goods and Services: Even if the marks themselves are similar, if the goods or services they represent are vastly different, confusion is less likely.

For example, confusion may be less likely between a “LOTUS” mark for software and a “LOTUS” mark for cigarettes than if both were marks for similar software products.

Strength of the Prior Mark: Strong, distinctive, or well-known marks enjoy broader protection.

A famous brand like “APPLE” or “NIKE” is more likely to be protected against similar marks than a relatively unknown brand. The reasoning is that consumers familiar with a famous mark may more readily assume a connection when they see a similar one.

Evidence of Actual Confusion: Courts consider whether consumers have already been confused.

While direct evidence is not always required, if a trademark owner can show incidents of actual confusion—calls, emails, or returns to the wrong company, for instance—this strongly supports a finding of confusing similarity.

Marketing Channels and Target Audience: The overlap in how and where the products are sold, and to whom, matters. If two similar marks target the same consumer groups through the same retailers or advertising channels, confusion is more likely.

Intent of the Alleged Infringer: If the second user of the mark adopted it knowingly to ride on the coattails of the established mark’s reputation, this can weigh heavily in favor of a finding of confusion.

These factors are often applied flexibly, and no single factor is always decisive. Instead, courts and examiners weigh them collectively to determine whether confusion is likely.

Confusingly Similar Trademark Examples

Over the years, numerous cases have illustrated what constitutes a confusingly similar trademark.

While some disputes are resolved quietly by agreement, many have ended up in court, providing instructive examples of how trademark principles are applied.

Below are several cases and scenarios highlighting marks found to be confusingly similar, as well as those that are arguably borderline.

Starbucks

In 2006, Starbucks challenged the trademark application of a small coffee roaster in New Hampshire called Charbucks, claiming that the name was too similar to its own and could confuse consumers.

The dispute was resolved in 2013, allowing Charbucks to keep its name, provided it did not use a similar logo.

In contrast, another coffee brand, “Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co,” which launched in India in 2015, faced a less favorable outcome.

In 2017, Starbucks demanded that Sardarbuksh change its name and logo. The court ruled in favor of Starbucks, requiring the business to rebrand as “Sardarji-Bakhsh Coffee & Co.”

Jack Daniel’s

In 2014, VIP Products LLC introduced a line of dog toys resembling whiskey bottles, branded as “Bad Spaniels,” with labels that imitated the Jack Daniel’s whiskey design.

Jack Daniel’s Properties filed a lawsuit against VIP Products, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition.

Jack Daniel’s argued that the “Bad Spaniels” name was phonetically similar to its own, likely leading to consumer confusion.

The court ruled in favor of Jack Daniel’s, ordering VIP Products to pay damages and cease sales of the “Bad Spaniels” toys.

McDonald’s

A notable trademark dispute involving McDonald’s occurred with “McSweet LLC,” a small maple syrup company in Vermont.

McDonald’s sued McSweet, claiming that the name was too similar to “McDonald’s” and could confuse customers. The case was ultimately settled out of court.

Another instance involved “MacJoy Fastfood Corporation” in the Philippines, which used a name and logo similar to McDonald’s.

In 2002, McDonald’s filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement, arguing that the similarities would confuse consumers. The case was settled, with MacJoy agreeing to change its name and logo.

Delhi Lakme Ltd v. Subhash Trading

In this case, the plaintiff, Delhi Lakme Ltd, marketed cosmetic products under the Lakme trademark, while the defendant used the “LikeMe” trademark for similar products.

The court found a resemblance between the two names, noting their phonetic similarity. This similarity raised concerns about potential deception and confusion among consumers.

M/s Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd. v. Mr. Raj Niwas

The plaintiff, Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd., produced and sold spices and condiments under the MDH logo, which featured a red background with three hexagons.

The defendant used the “MHS” logo on a similar red hexagonal background. The court determined that both marks were similar enough to likely cause confusion and deception.

The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from using the “MHS” logo or any other trademark that was deceptively similar to the MDH trademark.

Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

In a landmark 2001 ruling, the Supreme Court found that the name “Mahendra & Mahendra” infringed upon the established trade name “Mahindra,” which had been in use for over fifty years and had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning.

M/s Surya Roshini Ltd. v. M/s Electronic Sound Components Co

In this case, the Delhi High Court ruled that there was deceptive similarity between the trademarks “Surya” and “Bhaskar,” as both names are literal translations of the word “Sun.” This similarity was deemed likely to mislead consumers.

Louboutin

In 2019, Christian Louboutin initiated a trademark infringement lawsuit against the New York luxury shoe brand Lubov, arguing that its name and logo closely resembled Louboutin’s registered trademarks.

The lawsuit also highlighted that Lubov’s use of a red sole on some of its shoes—a signature feature of Louboutin footwear—contributed to consumer confusion.

The case was settled in 2020, with Lubov agreeing to rebrand as “LJ Cross” and alter its logo to eliminate any potential confusion with Louboutin’s trademarks.

Additionally, Lubov was required to stop using red soles on its shoes and to remove any social media content featuring red-soled footwear.

Louis Vuitton

In the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (2007), Louis Vuitton sued Haute Diggity Dog, a company that produced pet toys, for trademark infringement over its “Chewy Vuiton” line of dog toys.

Louis Vuitton contended that the name was phonetically similar to its own brand. However, the court ultimately ruled that Haute Diggity Dog’s use of the mark constituted a parody and did not infringe on Louis Vuitton’s trademark rights.

Avoiding Confusing Similarity

From the examples above, it’s clear that small differences in spelling or the addition of minor elements generally do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

Businesses seeking to create a new trademark must choose a name and design that stand comfortably apart from established brands, particularly those in the same or a related industry.

Some guidelines include:

• Create a Distinctive Mark:
  Fanciful or arbitrary marks—words or symbols with no inherent connection to the product—are less likely to be confusingly similar to others. For example, invented words like “Kodak” or “Xerox” are very strong marks that stand out in a crowd.
• Conduct Thorough Searches:
  Before adopting a new mark, perform extensive trademark searches in relevant jurisdictions. Look not only for identical marks but also for marks that are phonetically, visually, or conceptually similar.
• Differentiate Both in Appearance and Meaning:
  Choose marks that do not evoke the same images or meanings as existing marks. For example, if a competitor’s mark suggests speed and agility (like “Cheetah”), consider avoiding any big cat or speed-based imagery.
• Seek Legal Counsel Early:
  Trademark lawyers can help navigate these waters, advising on whether a chosen mark might cause confusion with existing ones and assisting in making strategic adjustments before launch.

Balancing Protection and Competition

While protecting established trademarks from confusingly similar competitors is crucial, it’s also important for trademark law to maintain a balance.

Overly broad interpretations of confusing similarity could unfairly limit competition or the use of common words.

Trademark law generally does not grant absolute monopolies over ordinary language. Instead, it preserves competition by allowing others to use descriptive or generic terms in a fair manner, provided they do not cross the line into confusion.

For instance, many companies use the word “gold” in their branding for its connotation of quality. Not all uses of “gold” in branding are confusing simply because one company has a “Gold Brand Coffee” and another sells “Golden Beans Coffee.”

Courts will weigh whether the ordinary consumer is likely to be confused, taking into account that some terms are inherently weaker and thus less likely to trigger broad exclusivity.

Moreover, courts and trademark offices often focus on the overall impression created by the marks, rather than performing a side-by-side comparison.

They consider how consumers encounter the marks in the real world. Are they often seen together, or would they appear in different markets and contexts? Would consumers have a reason to differentiate one brand from another, or are they likely to rely on superficial cues that lead them astray?

Technological Evolution and New Challenges

As commerce moves increasingly online, the concept of confusing similarity faces new challenges. Domain names, social media handles, and app store listings create fresh arenas for brand confusion.

A brand owner might claim that a competitor’s domain name is confusingly similar to its own trademark.

For example, “amaz0n.com” (with a zero) might confuse internet users expecting to shop on Amazon. Such “typosquatting” or “cybersquatting” cases hinge on the same principles as trademark law: are consumers likely to believe the domain or social media handle is controlled by or associated with the trademark owner?

The same holds true for voice commerce and virtual assistants, where phonetic similarity might create more confusion than visual similarity.

As consumers increasingly rely on voice commands (“Alexa, order me Charbucks coffee”), subtle phonetic differences may be harder for consumers—and their devices—to discern. This heightens the importance of choosing marks that are clearly distinguishable phonetically as well as visually.

What’s Next?

In the field of trademark law, the concept of confusingly similar trademarks is crucial for trademark holders seeking to protect their brand identity.

When two marks are so alike that a likelihood of confusion exists among consumers, it can lead to significant challenges in maintaining a brand’s market position. This confusion between brands can be particularly pronounced within the same class of products, where consumers may inadvertently associate one brand with another due to similar names or logos.

To ensure fair market competition, it is essential for businesses to know the original description of their trademarks and how they relate to others in the marketplace. By proactively addressing potential conflicts, companies can safeguard their reputation and avoid costly legal disputes.

Bytescare offers comprehensive brand solutions for trademark infringement, enhancing your reputation through expert monitoring and strategic enforcement. Book a demo to see firsthand how we can protect your trademark.

FAQs