Mispronunciation of Brand Names and Why It Matters Legally
- Pari Malhotra
- Feb 25
- 6 min read
Introduction
As global brands enter the Indian market, they are often reshaped by local speech patterns. While we’ve proudly built a reputation as a country rich in culture, curiosity, and an unstoppable drive to succeed, we also share certain quirks that unite us in collective amusement. One of the most endearing and consistently entertaining of these is our habit of mispronouncing brand names.
Whether it’s someone confidently calling Puma “Poo-ma” or Xiaomi as “Jao-mee”/ “Ex-ao-mee,” we’ve all laughed at these creative pronunciations which have become a part of our cultural fabric and have even turned them into memes that still circulate today. But how often do we pause to think whether these funny mispronunciations might actually have an impact on the brands themselves, particularly from a legal perspective?
However, let’s take a closer look at how everyday mispronunciations by consumers can play a role in trademark conflicts and even shape a brand’s legal position.
Why Pronunciation Can Make or Break The Future of a Brand
Before getting your brand name registered as a trademark, it’s important to conduct a thorough trademark search. A key part of this process involves identifying and assessing the degree of phonetic similarity between the competing marks. Phonetic similarity refers to the degree to which two or more brand names, words, or trademarks sound alike when spoken out loud, even if they are spelled differently. This becomes especially important with languages like English. While it’s widely understood today, the relationship between how certain words are spelled and how they’re pronounced remains surprisingly nuanced and sometimes downright confusing. (The whole Queen’s English vs. King’s English debate doesn’t help either!). In English language, many words sound the same even though they’re spelled differently, like ‘pair’ and ‘pear’ or ‘write’ and ‘right’. The same kind of phonetic overlap can happen with brand names, and this can easily confuse consumers. When two brand names sound alike, people may mix them up, which can lead to financial or reputational damage for a business.
That’s why checking for phonetic similarity is such an important step before registering a trademark. Doing this early helps to spot possible conflicts, avoid future disputes, and make sure that the chosen brand name is unique, legally defensible, and less likely to be mistaken for an existing one.
Statutory Framework Governing Phonetic Similarity and Dissimilarity of Marks
Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 states that “where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation and reference in this section to the use of a mark shall be construed accordingly”[1]. The aforesaid provision recognizes that similarity in sound or pronunciation of words can lead to infringement and confusion even if the visual appearance of the marks are overall different.
Famous Court Cases Where Pronunciation Was The Deciding Factor
In the case of Encore Electronics Ltd. vs. Anchor Electronics & Electricals Pvt. Ltd.[2], it was held that “The Court must have a realistic consciousness of the fact that both the marks are used in the Indian market and it is a consumer in India whose observation and assessment must guide the decision making. The manner in which the rival marks would be ordinarily pronounced and the manner in which the marks would be written in Indian languages constitutes an important indicator of whether a case of deceptive similarity has been established. As the Learned Single Judge stated both the marks contained an overwhelming emphasis on the letters 'ncor' and the fact that the mark of the Plaintiff begins with an "a" while the mark of the Defendant begins with an "e" would make little difference to the manner in which the rival marks are pronounced. The manner in which the marks would be written in the Gujarati and Devanagari scripts bears a close resemblance - close enough for an intending purchaser of the product of the Defendant to be led to believe that the goods of the Defendant have associated with them the goodwill and reputation which is associated with the mark of the Plaintiff”. Therefore, this observation recognised the crucial role of pronunciation and script in determining deceptive similarity. It recognises that trademark confusion often arises not from visual comparison alone, but from how the average Indian consumer speaks and perceives the mark, making phonetic analysis an indispensable part of trademark adjudication.
Further, in the case of K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co. and Anr.[3], the Supreme Court observed that “There is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might be due to the fact that the appellant’s trade is not of long standing. There is no visual resemblance between the two marks, but ocular comparison is not always the decisive test. The resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. There is a close affinity of sound between Ambal and Andal”.
The Delhi High Court’s observation in the case of Consitex S.A. vs Ms. Kamini Jain & Ors.[4], i.e, “Under these circumstances, considering the entire facts and law applicable to the present, I am of the considered view that the defendants’ use of the impugned trade mark “JENYA” in the course of the same trade and for the same product is likely to cause confusion and deception and it is deceptively similar with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff i.e. “ZEGNA which is also pronounced as ZEN-YAH and जेनिया registered in Hindi.” reinforces the Court’s consistent approach of not only assessing the visual similarity of marks but also the phonetic similarity and how the relevant public would pronounce the marks in question, while assessing likelihood of confusion.
When Brands Turn Mispronunciations Into Opportunities
On a lighter note, some companies have actually turned common mispronunciations of their brand names into smart marketing moments. Instead of seeing it as a problem, they’ve used it to spark attention and connect with their audience and consumers. A great example is Hyundai, whose ad campaign humorously and cleverly tackled the mispronunciation of its brand name by the commercial showing people performing voice searches for ‘Hyun-dai’, only to be redirected to fictional places like ‘High N Dye’ or ‘Highland Eye’, and then the ad wraps up with a friendly and humorous correction with the line “It’s Hyundai, by the way”. By reinforcing the Korean pronunciation i.e., “Hyun-day”, the campaign not only generated laughs but also increased brand awareness and subtly corrected consumer perception.
Another recent example is Xiaomi’s Diwali 2025 ad campaign, which cleverly capitalised on the long-running confusion around the brand’s pronunciation. Styled in the unmistakable mid-2010s reality-TV format, complete with dramatic reactions and high-energy background music, the commercial opens with Raghu and Rajiv, the well-known twin hosts from MTV Roadies, grilling a contestant over a seemingly simple question: “Diwali ke sabse acche deals kahaan milenge?” (Where will you get the best Diwali deals?) What follows is a fiery, comedic exchange between the brothers as they argue over how to pronounce “Xiaomi,” escalating into the kind of over-the-top banter that once made them household names. Just as the drama peaks, Devarshi, Xiaomi India’s spokesperson, steps in to restore order, delivering the punchline that ties the entire bit together:
“Chahe aap ise Shiyomi, Zaohmi, ya Shaomi bulao—Xiaomi is still the most trusted brand for the latest tech. Aur iss Diwali, yahan mil rahe hain sabse bade deals!” (Whether you call it Shiyomi, Zaohmi, or Shaomi—Xiaomi is still the most trusted brand for the latest tech. And this Diwali, the biggest deals are happening right here!)
By turning a common mispronunciation into a clever humorous advertisement, the campaign by Xiaomi not only entertained audiences but also reinforced consumer trust and heightened brand recall during the festive season.
Conclusion
Returning to the question raised earlier, it becomes clear that while some brands know how to spin these quirks, i.e., mispronunciation of their brand name into gold, by crafting witty ad campaigns to strengthen brand recognition, most brands are not so fortunate. For many, frequent mispronunciation can dilute brand identity, hinder distinctiveness, and even complicate trademark enforcement.
In trademark law, where phonetic similarity plays a crucial role in determining the deceptiveness of marks and likelihood of consumer confusion, how the relevant public pronounces a brand name can be just as important as how it is spelled on paper. Mispronunciation can blur distinctions between competing marks, weaken a brand’s exclusivity, and affect its ability to defend its trademark in disputes.
Therefore, while some brands may turn mispronunciation into a marketing advantage, it is important to remember that the majority face very real legal and commercial consequences. This makes phonetic analysis and not just visual comparison, an essential pillar of trademark protection in India’s multilingual, richly diverse marketplace.”
Pari Malhotra
Associate
References
[1] Trade Marks Act, 1999
[2] 2007 (35) PTC 714
[3] 1970 AIR 146
[4] CS (OS) No. 629/2011
Comments