Vitamin preparations--'DROPOVIT" whether a trade mark
deceptively similar to 'PROTOVIT' so as to offened s.
12(1)--'DROPOVIT ... consideration were: (i) whether the word 'DROPOVIT' was
deceptively similar to the word 'PROTOVIT' and thus
offended the provision
course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect
defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted
finding that
the marks of the appellant and respondent were deceptively
similar was inconsistent with the finding that the packing
in which the appellant ... establish that the trade mark
used by the defendant is deceptively similar. This has
necessarily to be done by a comparison of the two marks
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 , s. 2(d)--Deceptively
similar'--Proper approach by court for determining if one
mark is deceptively similar ... course of trade, a mark which is identical with or
deceptively similar to, the trade mark, in relation to any
goods in respect of which
proprietor of the mark from those of others; (h) “deceptively similar”.— A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark ... trade mark; and (b) is or are identical with or deceptively similar to the name or initials of a person carrying on business in connection
name, as proprietor of certification trade mark, of that person; (d) "deceptively similar": - A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark ... trade mark; and (b) is or are identical with or deceptively similar to the name or initials of a person carrying on business in connection
mark
and/or any mark which may be identical and/or
deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered
trade mark and thereby restrain them ... label in
larger size, in first alphabet definitely creates
deception and confusion. It is deceptively similar
with the trade-mark of the plaintiff. Therefore
words "Mahendra & Mahendra" or any word which is
deceptively similar to "Mahindra" and/or 'Mahindra & Mahindra ... phonetically,
visually and structurally almost identical and in any event deceptively
similar. In the prospectus of the defendant the words "Mahendra and
Mahendra
favour. It held that the
defendants' mark was 'deceptively similar' within section
2(1)(d) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks ... inasmuch as the
defendant used its mark which was 'deceptively similar' to
the plaintiff's trade mark. Apart from the right arising
