Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)Cadila Laboratories Ltd. vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 21 June, 2001
6. The facts of the appeal on hand and the facts of the above referred Cadila Laboratories Ltd.'s case closely resemble except that the conflicting marks were BOROFAX and BROFEX, which prima facie did not appear to be phonetically and structurally identical or similar. In the present case the conflicting marks SEREN and SERENE are patently identical phonetically as well as structurally. In view of this, we do not think it necessary to burden ourselves to record the further submissions that were made by the learned Counsel and further decisions relied upon by him in support of his submissions as we are of the opinion the appellant's mark is so glaringly similar or identical that the likelihood of confusion or deception is imminent. In our view the likelihood of deception or confusion is so patent that remanding the matter back to the Assistant Registrar would be sheer waste of public time.
Section 20 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
1