Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

83. In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. And Co., Mysore , emphasis was laid on the broad and essential features of the impugned mark holding:
...It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him.
84. Noticing the similarity of the mark in question with that of the impugned mark, it was opined that Sif one was not careful enough to note the peculiar features of the wrapper on the plaintiffs' goods, he might easily mistake the defendants' wrappper for the plaintiffs' if shown to him some time after he had seen the plaintiffs'.