that: (i) the trademarks used by the Defendants were identical or
deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered trademark and are used for
identical goods ... mark as also to restrain third parties from using identical or
deceptively similar marks under Section 28 of the Trade Marks
Singh
Chartered Accountants' used by the Defendants are identical/deceptively
similar to each other and are used for overlapping services ... Singh Chartered
Accountants', when seen as a whole has no deceptive similarity. This
response is misconceived, to say the least. The rule does
identical nature of
services/products offered by the Defendant, the deceptive similarity of
the rival marks and common trade channels and consumers, it is
inevitable ... course of trade, a
mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the trademark of the
registered proprietor, in respect of goods which are either
from infringing
them. Defendants No.1 to 6 are using identical/deceptively similar marks for
identical services, which amounts to infringement under Section ... distributorship
rights; creating a website www.delhevery.com; and adopting deceptively
similar mark in their domain name, which was found to be fake when
Plaintiff
ELECTROCAD, for which he has adopted trade
dress/packaging , which is deceptively similar to Plaintiff's trade
dress/packaging for ELECTRAL. Defendant ... ELECTROCAD
which features a green-and-white colour combination and is deceptively
similar to the trade dress/packaging of Plaintiff's ELECTRAL products
Plaintiff through its market sources discovered that Defendant is using
a deceptively similar mark "RR STEELMAX" for identical goods ... with complete knowledge
using identical/deceptively similar mark to Plaintiff's registered marks for
similar goods with similar trade channels, amounts to infringement under
domain
name or trademark in any manner, which is identical or deceptively similar
to that of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have been vigilant in protecting their ... domain name
used by Defendant No. 1 is identical/deceptively similar to that of the
Plaintiffs and there is every likelihood of confusion amongst
impugned trademark, according to the Appellant, is identical
with and/or deceptively similar to Appellant's trademark/label in every
aspect, i.e., phonetically ... unfair trade and competition. As the competing trademarks
are identical/deceptively similar, goods are identical and the trade channels
are also common, consumers are bound
domain name or trademark in
any manner, which is identical or deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have been vigilant in protecting their ... Plaintiffs came across the impugned
domain name, which is identical/deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiffs
and there is every likelihood of confusion amongst
asking it to refrain from selling the
impugned products, bearing the deceptively similar trademark OUD WHITE
and virtually identical trade dress for its products ... copyright
infringement. The rival marks OUD WHITE and WHITE OUD are
deceptively similar and the impugned packaging/trade dresses are
deceptively similar to those
