Downloaded on - 05/06/2023 01:04:32 :::
wp 1517.2022 .doc
deceptive similarity laid down by the Supreme Court in
various decisions as also ... Petitioner constitutes an admission that its impugned mark
OFLOMAC is deceptively similar to Respondent No. 4's prior
registered trade mark OFRAMAX. Such adoption
particular the test of
10
wp 1517.2022 .doc
deceptive similarity laid down by the Supreme Court in
various decisions as also by this Court ... Petitioner constitutes an admission that its impugned mark
OFLOMAC is deceptively similar to Respondent No. 4's prior
registered trade mark OFRAMAX. Such adoption
Marks and
the LW/LW+ Labels or any deceptively similar marks. Judicial
protection and recognition has been accorded to the Plaintiff ... bearing the mark LW (along with HYDROBUILD)
which mark is identical / deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's
LW/LW+ Marks and which products
services under the
trademark "Anna" identical, phonetically confusing or deceptively
similar to Plaintiff's registered trademark 'Anna Idli ... case of
deception or confusion. Thus, now the plaintiff cannot say before the
Court that the trademarks are deceptively similar or would create
confusion amongst
services under the
trademark "Anna" identical, phonetically confusing or deceptively
similar to Plaintiff's registered trademark 'Anna Idli ... case of
deception or confusion. Thus, now the plaintiff cannot say before the
Court that the trademarks are deceptively similar or would create
confusion amongst
word 'KATARIA' or any other
mark identical with/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's
registered trademark in respect of the services ... existence of a valid registration (2) impugned
trademark, being identical or deceptively similar to the
registered trademark, and (3) use of impugned trademark in
relation
petitioner claimed that the trademark of
respondent no.3 was deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark
and constituted a colourable imitation and closely ... arrive at a finding as to whether one mark is deceptively similar
to another, the broad and essential features of the two marks
generic work in both marks does not justify finding of
deceptive similarity. There is no phonetic, visual or structural
resemblance in the rival marks ... deception and actual deception or damage need not be
proved. Prima facie upon comparison of the rival products and by
applying the overall similarity test
emblem
and other insignia of the Plaintiffs' Association
which are deceptively similar to that of the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 ... even the literary work
described in the plaint which are deceptively similar
to and a fraudulent imitation of those of the
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs assert
that the Defendant's mark
is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark
and that the Defendant is using ... alia restraining
the Defendant from using the mark or any other deceptively
similar mark containing the word ELDER. This Court also appointed
Court Receiver
