It is not correct to move backwards from a presumption of confusion and then assume ex hypothesi that there is a similarity. Though both marks ESBEDA and EDMODA for leather goods had some similarities in terms of interlinked mirror images, the plaintiff had not discharged the burden of proving that goodwill existed, there was misrepresentation and that it had suffered damage. The Court on 21-11-2016 had held that merely because each had six letters, and each begins with “E” and ends with “A”, it is not possible to conclude that there would be confusion between the marks. Moreover, the customers for these products were likely to be educated with ability to discern between marks and would not be misled. The Court in the case of Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ishaan Overseas has opined that the test of similarity must be applied first, and then one must proceed to other tests. There was also nothing to show element of deceit on the defendant’s part. The Single Judge accordingly denied injunction in favour of the plaintiff on counts of both infringement and passing off.