that the trade mark of the defendant is
similar or deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff. Stress is laid
on the following ... 2012 Page 16 of 17
using the trade mark „Genesis SKYON‟ or any other mark deceptively
similar to that of the registered trade mark
mark
NEWSHOUR.
(iv) It is further stated that the defendants' mark with addition of prefixes
or suffixes with NEWSHOUR is not deceptively similar ... KNOW or any
derivatives or combinations thereof or any other deceptively
similar trade marks/titles/taglines of the Plaintiff and its channel
Times
indirectly, reproducing the
infringing logo mark or any other mark/trade mark/logo/device which is
identical and deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs ... mark. A comparison of the two
marks would make it manifest that the mark of the defendants is deceptively
similar to that of the plaintiffs
medicinal products or other related goods under the
trade mark „HEPROTEC‟ or any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟
trade mark „HEPITEC‟ and for other ... medicinal
products or other related products under the trade mark „HEPROTEC‟ or
any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟ trade mark „HEPITEC‟.
3. The matter
medicinal preparations under the impugned mark LULIBET or any other
mark that may be visually, structurally or phonetically deceptively similar to
the plaintiff‟s trademark ... marks indicates
that the same are not identical or similar. As the marks are not identical or
similar the test for infringement is the same
similar mark to the Plaintiffs mark/s
'TAXIM' and 'TAXIM Family of Marks' amounting to
infringement of the Plaintiff s marks ... trademark 'TYXIM',
TYXIM FORTE, TYXIM Marks and/or any other mark
deceptively similar to the marks of the Plaintiff being 'TAXIM
mark RUSTON.
However as the respondent was using the mark RUSTAM INDIA, the High
Court held that mark was ceased to be deceptively similar ... trade mark, it is an infringement of the mark itself to use
that word as the mark or part of the mark of another trader
this court restrained the defendants from using the impugned
mark or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s mark
„CENTRAL PARK‟. The defendant ... this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
........
(h) "deceptively similar".--A mark shall be deemed to be
deceptively similar to another mark
medicinal
preparations under the impugned trade mark „DECITAS‟ or any other mark
which is structurally or deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s registered trade
mark ... drug/medicinal
preparations using the impugned trade mark „DECITAS‟ or any other mark
which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s registered trade mark
DECITEX
plaintiffs and the
impugned marks of the defendants, prima facie it appears that the
defendants' marks are deceptively similar to the registered trademarks ... using the trade mark 'WHIRLPOOL' or any other
trade mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the trade mark
of 'WHIRLPOOL
