Are Nandu’s and Nando’s similar marks?

The Court found the marks sufficiently different in look and sound, and used for different offerings, so confusion was unlikely.

Do different services matter in trademark law?

Yes. When the goods and services, trade channels, and customer base are different, confusion risk falls.

Who must prove likelihood of confusion?

The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s use would probably mislead the average consumer of the relevant goods or services.

Can a restaurant and a packaged-meat brand clash?

Only if consumers would think they come from the same source. Here, the Court held they would not.

What evidence helps or hurts confusion claims?

Brand presentation, channels of trade, target buyers, market surveys, and actual confusion (if any) are all relevant.

balkrishna-hatcheries-v-nandos-bombay-high-court

```

Quick Summary

Question: Would buyers confuse Nandu’s with Nando’s? Answer: The Court said No. The marks looked and sounded different enough, and they were used for different offerings—processed/frozen meat products vs. restaurant services. With separate trade channels and brand styles, the likelihood of confusion was not proved.

Same or close marks are not enough by themselves.
Consider goods/services, buyers, and trade channels.
Plaintiff must show likely confusion—mere possibility is not enough.

Issues

Are Nandu’s and Nando’s similar as marks in sight, sound, and idea?
Are the goods/services identical or similar for confusion to arise?

Rules

Trademark Infringement: Plaintiff must prove a likelihood of confusion among average consumers.
Global test: Compare marks, nature of goods/services, trade channels, consumer base, and overall presentation.

Facts (Timeline)

1987 Nando’s uses NANDO’S in South Africa for restaurants.

1990 Balkrishna Hatcheries uses NANDU’S in India for processed/frozen meat.

2005 Nando’s opens its first restaurant in India.

2006 Balkrishna opposes Nando’s trademark application in India.

Decision Court finds no likely confusion; infringement claim fails.

Arguments

Plaintiff: Balkrishna Hatcheries (Nandu’s)

Nandu’s and Nando’s look and sound close.
Both relate to chicken/meat; buyers may think same source.
Restaurant use could spill over to packaged goods space.

Defendant: Nando’s International Ltd.

Different services vs goods: restaurants vs packaged meat.
Distinct brand style, logos, and presentation.
Separate trade channels and customer expectations.

Judgment

The Bombay High Court held that Nando’s use of its mark was not likely to confuse consumers. The marks were different enough and used for dissimilar offerings—restaurant services versus processed/frozen meat products. Therefore, the infringement claim failed.

Gavel with storefront and package icons indicating different services and goods

Ratio Decidendi

Confusion is the core test. Even if marks share some similarity, absence of overlap in goods/services, trade channels, and consumer perception can defeat an infringement claim.

Why It Matters

Shows courts weigh context, not just name similarity.
Separates restaurant services from packaged goods markets.
Encourages evidence-based confusion analysis.

Key Takeaways

Likelihood of confusion is the plaintiff’s burden.
Different goods/services and channels reduce confusion risk.
Overall brand get-up and buyer attention levels matter.
Close names alone do not guarantee infringement.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: N-A-N-D-O = Name compared, Audience differs, Nature of offering, Distribution channels, Overall impression.

Compare marks and get-up.
Check goods/services & channels.
Decide if average buyers would likely be confused.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Whether Nandu’s and Nando’s cause likely confusion.	Plaintiff must prove likely confusion considering marks, goods/services, channels, consumers.	Different offerings and channels; visual/phonetic differences; no persuasive confusion evidence.	No infringement; claim dismissed.

Glossary

Likelihood of Confusion: Probability that an average buyer would believe the goods/services come from the same source.
Trade Channels: Where and how goods/services reach customers—stores, restaurants, online, distributors.
Get-up: Overall brand presentation: logo, colours, packaging, signage, and style.

Student FAQs

No. Courts look at the full context—goods/services, branding, channels, and the likely buyer’s perception.

Sometimes, but not automatically. Plaintiffs must show that buyers are likely to link them to the same source.

Market surveys, instances of actual confusion, similar packaging, and overlapping sales channels can help.

Footer

Reviewed by The Law Easy

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Nandu’s v. Nando’s, likelihood of confusion, Bombay High Court SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: similar marks, dissimilar services, trademark infringement India

```

Useful Links

Contact