disorders. The
Plaintiff states that Liv.52 and LIV-T are deceptively similar. In the plaint,
it is stated that "the essential and distinguishable ... prove its case of either
likelihood of or actual deception or deceptive similarity. The submission
that a customer with imperfect recollection who might see both
case is
that in case of any use of a deceptively similar trademark, the
consequences of infringement under the provision of Section ... similar. A Learned Single
Judge of this Court held that the two marks were sufficiently
similar so as to be reasonably likely to cause deception
trade mark "Collector‟s Choice" or
any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s trade mark "Officer‟s
Choice ... trade mark "Collector‟s
Choice" or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s trade
mark "Officer‟s Choice
Division of defendant No. 3. The mark is stated to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's LIA mark - both phonetically and visually ... artistic features and labels are identical with or deceptively similar to the trademark / copyrights of the plaintiff sued upon amounting to infringement and passing
mark „Genesis SKYON‟ or any other trade mark which
may be deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s trade mark „IREO SKYON‟.
Other connected reliefs ... said impugned trade
mark or using any trade mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s
trade mark till pendency of the Suit
word mark "Parkitane" is visually, phonetically, structurally and deceptively similar to the registered trade mark "Pacitane" of the respondents, bearing ... under any other trade mark which is an infringement of or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark "Pacitane" of the 1st plaintiffs
which according to him are identical with and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark "PIOZ-15" and "PIOZ ... they are not phonetically different, not identical and they are deceptively similar and, therefore, passing off action against the defendant could be maintained. Per contra
similar. A Learned Single Judge of this Court held that the two marks were sufficiently similar so as to be reasonably likely to cause deception ... likelihood of deception. The factors which were enunciated by the Supreme Court in deciding the issue of deceptive similarity are as follows :
(a) The nature
that the mark "CROFEN" of respondent No. 2 was deceptively similar to the trade mark "BRUFEN" and that it would cause ... causing any confusion or deception. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks further held that the two marks are not deceptively similar and the reasons given
mark or brand or work being identical with and/or deceptively similar to and/or a colorable imitation of the plaintiff's original trade ... deceptive trade mark and as such, it is a fit case where this Court should hold that the trade mark of respondents is deceptively similar
