or deceptively similar to the registered one.
Courts examine whether the impugned use causes a likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers. Crucially, in infringement cases, the law does not demand proof of reputation, goodwill, or actual deception—the registration itself is the bedrock of protection.

This was reaffirmed recently by the Delhi High Court in Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Retail Pvt. Ltd. (2025), where the use of the term "TATA Mart" was injuncted, despite being used for dissimilar products. The court underscored the well-known status of the TATA brand and the possibility of dilution, stressing that a strong registered mark deserves protection even against indirect exploitation.

On the other hand, passing off is a common law remedy that exists to protect the goodwill and reputation of an unregistered mark. Unlike infringement, it is rooted not in statutory right, but in equity. The claimant must satisfy the classic trinity: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. Courts here require evidence that the public associates the mark with the claimant and that the defendant’s actions are likely to deceive or confuse consumers into believing there is a connection.

In Hamdard National Foundation v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (2024), the Delhi High Court held in favour of “Rooh Afza” over the use of “Dil Afza,” ruling that despite no direct trademark clash, the use of a phonetically similar name amounted to misrepresentation. The judgment reaffirmed that passing off remains a powerful remedy, especially for businesses that may not have registered their marks but enjoy substantial market reputation.

Both doctrines converge around one common principle—consumer protection. Whether the issue is unauthorized use of a registered trademark or imitation of an unregistered but reputed one, the courts focus on whether the public is likely to be misled. However, goodwill is central to passing off, and its presence or absence often determines the outcome of such cases. In today’s interconnected world, even online presence and digital reputation can constitute sufficient goodwill to ground a passing off claim.

An example is the growing number of domain name disputes and social media impersonation cases. The Delhi High Court, in Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd. v. Snapdeall.com (2024), addressed how fraudulent domain names and look-alike websites could deceive consumers and infringe upon the established brand’s identity. The ruling clarified that online misrepresentation could be actionable under both trademark infringement and passing off, especially when digital platforms become the primary mode of consumer interaction.

Another emerging challenge is the misuse of trademarks in search engine marketing and influencer advertising. The use of protected trademarks as ad keywords, without disclosure or context, is increasingly being challenged as both infringement and passing off. Courts are now beginning to weigh whether such practices amount to exploiting goodwill without consent—a form of silent deception in the digital economy.

In a globalized marketplace, where brand value often surpasses product value, India’s dual legal structure of infringement and passing off offers businesses comprehensive protection. Yet, it also demands strategic foresight from brand owners—to not only register their trademarks but also vigilantly monitor and enforce their rights.

As Indian jurisprudence continues to evolve, the courts must ensure that the balance between brand freedom and consumer protection is maintained. Whether a mark is registered or not, the law must consistently uphold the principle that goodwill cannot be stolen and reputation cannot be faked.