Sec29(2) of trademarkact

Greetings of the day. On the basis of the facts provided by you, I wish to tell you that you are right, but only partially. While you are correct in assessing that the word identity denotes a higher degree of resemblance than the word ‘similarity’. But you are not wholly correct in assuming that sections 29(2)(a), 29(2)(b), 29(2)(c) denote the same meaning and that clauses (a) and (c) are redundant as all the cases can be covered under clause (b). You must know that each clause contains a separate situation, with the degree of infringement going in ascending order. Section 29(2)(a) covers the situation wherein the opposing trademark highly resembles the registered trademark, but the goods being dealt under the two trademarks resemble a lesser degree. Section 29(2)(b) covers the situation wherein the opposing trademark moderately resembles the registered trademark, but the goods being dealt under the two trademarks resemble a moderate to a higher degree. Section 29(2)(c) covers the situation wherein the opposing trademark highly resembles the registered trademark, and the goods being dealt under the two trademarks also resemble a higher degree. These are three different situations, and as we can see, section 29(2)(c) contains the most serious infringement, wherein both the trademark and the goods being dealt with are highly similar, which might even fall under the category of deceptive similarity of goods and the customer may buy a fake good believing it to be that of the original one. The court would determine the penalty accordingly. Hope it satisfies the query.