Delhi High Court Questions 'Zora' Trademark Registration, Says Visually Similar To 'Zara'

Justice Jyoti Singh scrutinised the Registrar's reliance on minor phonetic differences and the finding that the applicant for “Zora” operated in Delhi's Sadar Bazaar, catering to a different trade channel than Zara's branded retail business, to justify the co-existence of the marks.

The court expressed skepticism regarding the Registrar's finding that changing a single vowel eliminated deceptiveness, observing, “I don't see any reason why Zara and Zora will not be deceptively, structurally, visually similar”.

Challenging the respondent's counsel to a practical exercise, the court remarked, “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? Tell me honestly”.

The Court further noted that for a four-letter trademark, the Registrar appeared to have used a flawed method of comparison by splitting the syllables “Za-Ra” and “Zo-Ra,” observing that the Registrar “dodges the inquiry of similarity of goods and he dodges the inquiry of similarity of trademark”.

Zara submitted that “Zara has been declared as well-known trademark” in previous judgments and is internationally recognized as “one of the fastest fashion brands overall”. It was contended that under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, the mark is entitled to protection even for dissimilar goods because the unauthorized use is “detrimental to the distinctive character and repute” of the brand.

Section 11(2) protects a well-known trademark even in respect of dissimilar goods where use of a later mark would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark.

Zara also argued that even if the defendants sell bag linings in Sadar Bazaar, a middle-class consumer who “aspires to have Zara as a product” might be misled into thinking the “Zora” bags are a “replica of Zara”.

The Court reviewed the opinion of the Registrar, who had held that the “likelihood of both parties' products being selling together at one place is negligible”. The Registrar found that the applicant is a manufacturer of “laminated fabric... which is the inner lining of manufacturing of bags” in Sadar Bazaar, whereas the opponent sells finished fashion products to a different consumer base.

On that basis, the Registrar concluded that the likelihood of the parties' goods being sold together at the same place was “negligible” and held that confusion was unlikely given the difference in trade channels and consumer segments.

The Registrar further concluded that “determining the dissimilarity solely on the basis of vowel can result in unjust outcome” and that phonetically, the marks were distinct.

The matter is now scheduled for February 25, 2026 to allow the parties to discuss a potential settlement, with the Court observing that the marks fall within the same class of goods (Class 24) and appear deceptively similar.