Two brands can share a word and still not clash — if they sell different things to different buyers through different channels. The Bombay High Court made the point in a fight over the word “VOGUE.”
The two factors
Infringement primarily turns on two things: the identity/similarity of the marks, and the similarity of the goods or services. But “the similarity between the target customers” and trade channels feed directly into whether confusion is actually likely.
The case: VOGUE vs “Just in Vogue”
In Advance Magazine Publishers v. Just Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.:
- The plaintiffs held “VOGUE” registrations (Class 16, 1976; Class 41, 2004) plus VOGUE GIRL and TEEN VOGUE.
- The defendants used “JUST IN VOGUE” (Class 35) for retail services.
- The plaintiffs alleged infringement and passing off, claiming well-known status warranting protection beyond their registered classes.
- The defendants argued Section 29 requires goods-to-goods / services-to-services comparison — magazines (goods) versus retail services are distinct, aimed at different customers.
What the court held
The court dismissed the infringement claim:
- “A reasonable customer will not be misled” by the name similarity alone — “magazine publishers are not ordinarily known to be retailing fashion goods.”
- “VOGUE” is an ordinary descriptive word with “the lowest potential for protection.”
- Target customers differed sharply: the plaintiffs’ readers were “intelligent, affluent, well-travelled women aged 26–45,” while the defendants’ customers were “primarily men from the middle strata.”
- With no shared trade channels, confusion was implausible.
The takeaways
- Confusion is contextual, not just textual. Identical or similar words do not infringe where goods, channels and buyers diverge.
- Descriptive marks are weak. A common word like “vogue” gets thin protection, especially outside its registered field.
- Well-known status is not automatic cross-class cover — you still have to show a real likelihood of confusion or unfair advantage.
Frequently asked questions
Do identical words always mean trademark infringement? No. Where the goods, trade channels and target customers differ, confusion may be implausible — as with “VOGUE” and “Just in Vogue.”
Do target customers matter in an infringement analysis? Yes. The likely buyers and the channels through which goods reach them bear directly on whether confusion is likely.
Are descriptive words strongly protected? No. Ordinary descriptive words have low protective potential, especially beyond their registered class.
Does a well-known mark get automatic cross-class protection? Not automatically. The proprietor must still show a real likelihood of confusion or unfair advantage.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999