effects and designed for different uses, confusion amongst the products caused by similar marks could have disastrous effects and for this reason, it is proper to require a lesser quantum of proof of confusing similarity for drugs and medicinal preparations. Else, the factors to be considered were laid down as (a) the nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label marks or composite marks, i.e. both words and label works; (b) the degree of resembleness between the marks, phonetically similar and hence similar in idea; (c) the nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trade marks; (d) the similarity in the nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders; (e) the class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or using the goods; (f) the mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the goods; and, (g) any other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks. It was also held that weightage to be given to each of the said factors depends upon facts of each case and the same weightage cannot be given to each factor in each case.
