“Write It And See”: Delhi High Court Casts Doubt On ‘Zora’ Registration Over Striking Similarity To ‘Zara

“Write It And See”: Delhi High Court Casts Doubt On ‘Zora’ Registration Over Striking Similarity To ‘Zara

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has questioned the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks permitting registration of the mark “Zora”, observing that it appears “visually, receptively similar beyond any doubt” to the globally known fashion brand “Zara”. The matter arises from a challenge filed by Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A., owner of the brand “Zara”, against the Registrar’s order allowing registration of “Zora” in Class 24, which covers textile goods and fabrics.

Factual Background

The dispute concerns the registration of the mark “Zora” in Class 24 for textile goods, including laminated fabric used as inner lining in the manufacture of bags. The applicant for “Zora” operates in Delhi’s Sadar Bazaar and claimed to cater to a different trade channel than Zara’s branded retail fashion business.

Zara contended that it is a globally recognised brand and has been declared a well-known trademark in prior judicial proceedings. It argued that even a minor variation such as substitution of a vowel does not obviate deceptive similarity, particularly in a short, four-letter mark.

Procedural Background

The Registrar of Trade Marks had rejected Zara’s opposition and permitted registration of “Zora”. The Registrar reasoned that:

• The marks were phonetically distinct due to the change of vowel (“Za-Ra” vs “Zo-Ra”).
• The applicant operated in a different trade channel (fabric manufacturing in Sadar Bazaar).
• The likelihood of both parties’ goods being sold together was negligible.
• Aggrieved by this decision, Zara approached the Delhi High Court challenging the Registrar’s order.

Issues

1. Whether the mark “Zora” is deceptively similar to “Zara”.

2. Whether minor phonetic differences are sufficient to negate deceptive similarity.

3. Whether difference in trade channels and consumer segments can justify coexistence.

4. Whether Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act protects “Zara” beyond identical goods.

Contentions of the Parties

Zara submitted that it is a well-known trademark entitled to broader protection under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, including against use in relation to dissimilar goods where such use would be detrimental to its distinctive character or reputation. It argued that “Zara” is internationally recognised and that even a visually similar mark in the same class of goods would cause confusion or dilute the brand’s distinctiveness. It was further contended that consumers, including aspirational middle-class buyers, could associate “Zora” products with Zara, particularly when both marks fall within Class 24.

The respondent relied on the Registrar’s reasoning, arguing that the marks are phonetically different due to the vowel change and that the goods cater to different consumer bases and trade channels. It was submitted that the applicant manufactures laminated fabric used as bag lining, whereas Zara sells finished fashion products through branded retail outlets. On this basis, it was contended that the likelihood of confusion was negligible.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Jyoti Singh expressed skepticism about the Registrar’s approach, particularly the reliance on syllabic dissection and minor phonetic variation. The Court stated that, “I don't see any reason why Zara and Zora will not be deceptively, structurally, visually similar.” The Court remarked that in the case of a short, four-letter mark, splitting the word into syllables such as “Za-Ra” and “Zo-Ra” was a flawed method of comparison. It observed that the Registrar appeared to have “dodged” the inquiry into similarity of goods and similarity of the trademarks.

Challenging the respondent’s counsel to a practical test, the Court observed that, “Just write the two words on a piece of paper and put it at a distance in your office... and tell me on a first look, are you not going to be confused?”

The Court also took note that both marks fall within the same class of goods (Class 24), thereby weakening the argument that trade channels are entirely distinct. It appeared unconvinced that a mere change of a single vowel in a four-letter mark could eliminate deceptive similarity, particularly where the earlier mark enjoys well-known status.

The Court indicated that protection under Section 11(2) may extend even beyond identical goods, especially where use of a similar mark could be detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of a well-known trademark.

Decision

The matter has been listed for February 25, 2026 to allow the parties to explore a potential settlement. The Court has not yet passed a final order but has strongly indicated that the marks appear deceptively similar and that the Registrar’s reasoning warrants close scrutiny.