Impugned
Marks. The defence of the use of the prefix 'NOV' being common to trade is
not available to the Defendants ... Impugned Marks, the Defendants cannot claim that the prefix 'NOV'
is common to trade.
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 23 of 25
Signature
various
drugs are often almost similar to each other, having common prefixes or
suffixes, for the reason that the name of the drug conveys ... user of
the aforesaid word ‘Meropenem’. Along with the aforesaid
generic/common prefix, ‘Mero’, the appellants/plaintiffs have
used the syllables ‘nem’, whereas, the respondent
aspect of deceptive similarity, both the marks use
the common prefix PANTO. The Plaintiff uses the suffix CID and
Defendants use the suffix ZED. When ... Delhi
High Court that even excluding the consideration of common prefix
"PANTO", the remaining parts were deceptively similar.
29. In support
Kirpekar.
15. The defence is (a) bonafide adoption of LIVOGEM (b) prefix LIVO
common to trade (c) difference in rival marks as uncommon element ... Even accepting for the sake of arguments that the prefix LIVO is
common to the trade and descriptive, and regard
Laboratories Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4461.
6.5. The prefix, 'FEXI' is common to trade. The Plaintiff contends that ... clarified that 'common to register' is different
from 'common to trade'. The burden to prove that the prefix, 'FEXI
kept in mind that the first three letters ‘SIX’ is a common
prefix in almost all the marks that have been registered under Class
case of conflicting marks. Further, common to register does
not prove common to trade. Various marks containing prefix
'BEV' have been applied ... dissected into two
words.
22. Further, common to register does not prove common to trade. Various
marks containing prefix 'BEV' have been applied
Mr. Anil Gopalji Thacker vs Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra on 16 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
assessed as a whole and common words like 'Pride' cannot be
monopolized and distinct prefixes create different commercial
impressions. Based on same, defendant ... contends presence of a
common word like 'TULASI' does not automatically give rise to
infringement if overall mark, prefix/suffix, and branding create
assessed as a whole and common words like 'Pride' cannot be
monopolized and distinct prefixes create different commercial
impressions. Based on same, defendant ... contends presence of a
common word like 'TULASI' does not automatically give rise to
infringement if overall mark, prefix/suffix, and branding create
