What was the dispute in LaRoche v. Geoffrey Manners?

Whether the mark DROPOVIT was deceptively similar to PROTOVIT under Section 12(1) and whether DROPOVIT was descriptive or an invented word under Section 9.

How do courts check deceptive similarity?

By looking at the overall impression on an average buyer—visual and phonetic resemblance, product class, purchasing conditions, and other relevant facts.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

No real danger of confusion. DROPOVIT and PROTOVIT, taken as whole words, were not deceptively similar; DROPOVIT was an invented word and registrable.

Was the respondent’s mark removed from the register?

No. The Court upheld earlier findings and allowed DROPOVIT to remain registered.

Why is the case important for students?

It shows the ‘average consumer’ test and clarifies that invented words can be protected while similarity is judged on the whole mark, not common fragments.

F. Hoffmann-LaRoche v. Geoffrey Manners (1970)

PROTOVIT vs DROPOVIT — how the Supreme Court of India checks deceptive similarity and invented words.

Supreme Court of India 1970 AIR 1970 SC 2062 Trademark 6–8 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Published: 2025-11-01 Slug: f-hoffmann-laroche-v-geoffrey-manners-1970

```

CASE_TITLE

F. Hoffmann-LaRoche v. Geoffrey Manners (1970)

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS

PROTOVIT vs DROPOVIT, deceptive similarity, invented word, Section 12(1), Section 9

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: average consumer test, phonetic resemblance, visual similarity, trademark register, pharma marks

Quick Summary

LaRoche used the mark PROTOVIT for multivitamins. Geoffrey Manners registered DROPOVIT later. LaRoche wanted DROPOVIT removed for being deceptively similar.

The Supreme Court said: look at the whole word and the average buyer’s view. Here, no real risk of confusion. DROPOVIT is an invented word, not descriptive, and can stay registered.

Issues

Is DROPOVIT deceptively similar to PROTOVIT under Section 12(1)?
Is DROPOVIT descriptive or an invented word under Section 9?

Rules

Average consumer test: Overall impression matters—sight, sound, idea; not letter-by-letter comparison.
Consider nature of the mark, visual/phonetic similarity, goods/class, buying conditions, and other relevant facts.
An invented word is registrable; a descriptive word may be restricted unless it acquires distinctiveness.

Facts (Timeline)

Citation: AIR 1970 SC 2062

Timeline visual for LaRoche v. Geoffrey Manners

1946–1951

PROTOVIT registered and used by LaRoche for multivitamin products.

1957

Geoffrey Manners registers DROPOVIT.

1959

LaRoche seeks removal of DROPOVIT for deceptive similarity.

Registrar & High Court

Both hold no deceptive similarity; DROPOVIT is not descriptive.

Supreme Court

Appeal dismissed; findings affirmed.

Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)

Appellant (LaRoche)

DROPOVIT closely resembles PROTOVIT in look and sound; likely to confuse.
Same class of goods (medicinal), similar buyers and channels.
Mark should be removed to protect earlier rights.

Respondent (Geoffrey Manners)

DROPOVIT is an invented word; overall impression differs from PROTOVIT.
No real, tangible danger of confusion for an average buyer.
Registrar and High Court were right to keep it on the Register.

Judgment

Held: No deceptive similarity. DROPOVIT and PROTOVIT must be judged as whole words. Though both have eight letters and share the last three, the overall impression is different. DROPOVIT is an invented word and registrable. The mark stays on the Register.

Ratio

Similarity is judged by the average buyer’s overall impression. Common fragments do not decide the issue. An invented word that is not descriptive can be registered and retained.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the average consumer test in Indian trademark law.
Shows courts assess whole marks, not shared endings or syllables alone.
Confirms protection for invented words in pharma branding.

Key Takeaways

Overall Impression

Judge by sight, sound, and idea—of an ordinary buyer.

Whole Word

Common endings don’t decide similarity on their own.

Invented, Not Descriptive

Invented words are registrable and protectable.

Context Factors

Goods, channels, and buying conditions matter.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “WHOLE-AVG-INVENT” — judge the WHOLE mark · use the AVG buyer test · protect INVENTed words.

Look Wide: Compare the marks as a whole—sight, sound, idea.
Think Buyer: Ask how an ordinary purchaser would see it.
Tag the Word: If invented (not descriptive), it can stay registered.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether DROPOVIT is deceptively similar to PROTOVIT and whether DROPOVIT is descriptive or invented.

Rule

Average consumer test; whole word comparison; invented words are registrable; context factors applied.

Application

Despite some common letters, overall impression differs; buyers unlikely to be confused; DROPOVIT is invented.

Conclusion

No deceptive similarity; registration stands; appeal dismissed.

Glossary

Deceptive Similarity: Similarity that misleads an average buyer into thinking goods come from the same source.
Invented Word: A coined term with no direct descriptive meaning for the goods; easier to register and protect.
Average Consumer Test: Perspective of an ordinary buyer with imperfect memory, not a careful expert.
Whole Word Approach: Marks are judged as a whole, not by slicing common syllables or endings.