dealers and servants from using the trade mark GLUCOSE-
D or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the registered trade mark
GLUCON ... dealers and servants from using the trade
mark GLUCOSE-D or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the
registered trade mark GLUCON
deceptively similar mark or any colorable imitation thereof, in any manner whatsoever by affixing, labelling, packaging such mark or marks in respect of plywood, block ... mark, word CENTURIAN and/or the logo CENTURIAN or any name/mark/logo confusingly and/or deceptively similar to the mark/logo CENTURY;
(v) Decree
test products, scientific and
industrial testing products under an identical and deceptively
similar mark "METERIVA" on the interactive e-commerce websites
of defendant ... mark
"METRAVI") and the inferior products of the Appellant/Defendant
(bearing the impugned mark "METERIVA") are identical and deceptively
similar
test products, scientific and
industrial testing products under an identical and deceptively
similar mark "METERIVA" on the interactive e-commerce websites
of defendant ... mark
"METRAVI") and the inferior products of the Appellant/Defendant
(bearing the impugned mark "METERIVA") are identical and deceptively
similar
strikingly similar. The two marks
are phonetically, visually and structurally similar. Phonetic similarity
constitutes an important factor to ascertain as to whether the mark ... similar. The two marks are
phonetically, visually and structurally similar. Phonetic similarity
constitutes an important factor to ascertain as to whether the mark
bears deceptive
strikingly similar. The two marks
are phonetically, visually and structurally similar. Phonetic similarity
constitutes an important factor to ascertain as to whether the mark ... similar. The two marks are
phonetically, visually and structurally similar. Phonetic similarity
constitutes an important factor to ascertain as to whether the mark
bears deceptive
mark of the defendant are as
follows:
- Mark of the plaintiff
4
- Mark of the defendant
The defendant is utilizing the deceptively similar mark ... applied for similar business and similar trademark before the Trade Mark
Registry and has started the similar business using the similar mark of the
plaintiff
Petitioner's mark Respondents' mark
Considering the above, this Court finds that the defendants are
using the mark deceptively similar to the mark ... similar trade mark to that of the plaintiff's mark " "or any
other trade mark which is identical and/or similar
right to use the mark "ROSE" or any other
mark which is either identical or deceptively similar in respect of the
rice falling ... derive illegal
benefit from selling the similar goods bearing the similar mark as that
of petitioner otherwise such deceptively similar mark would not have
been
deceptible trade mark by any other policy is meant to deceive the public. According to the petitioner, the said proposed trade mark was deceptively similar ... marks which are likely to deceive or cause confusion. Deception or confusion may result from the fact that the marks are indentical or similar
