confusion and deception.
6. Upon an examination of the materials on record, it is evident that the
respondent has deliberately adopted deceptively similar trademarks ... similarity between the two marks are deceptively identical and
likely to cause confusion and deception."
9. Similarly, in the case of Make My Trip
confusion and deception.
6. Upon an examination of the materials on record, it is evident that the
respondent has deliberately adopted deceptively similar trademarks ... similarity between the two marks are deceptively identical and
likely to cause confusion and deception."
9. Similarly, in the case of Make My Trip
office in
Rajasthan was trading in tea in a packaging containing, deceptively similar artistic
works as that of the petitioner's products Lal Ghora ... Kamlesh Tea Company from using the packaging,
containing the artistic work deceptively similar to that of the petitioner in respect
other mark or
marks which are identical and/or deceptively similar and fraudulent
imitation of the plaintiff's trade name "Macrotech India ... Macrotech India" and/or identical and/or
deceptively similar trademarks as that of the plaintiff with an attempt
2
to pass off their goods
product of the plaintiff which is sold in a deceptively similar manner with
the number "786" in Arabic and the crescent moon ... mark "CHAND". The impugned mark is in a deceptively similar
colour combination and scheme as that being used by of the plaintiff
that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the test of
reputation, deceptive similarity and damage or likelihood thereof which
7
are the pre-conditions ... alleged that the impugned product of the respondent
comprises of deceptive similarities in the trade dress and the get up
which are exclusively associated with
that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the test of
reputation, deceptive similarity and damage or likelihood thereof which
7
are the pre-conditions ... alleged that the impugned product of the respondent
comprises of deceptive similarities in the trade dress and the get up
which are exclusively associated with
conducting further enquiries, the
petitioner came to learn of a deceptively similar product PROTIFIX being
listed on different online e-commerce platforms. Further searches were ... confusion and deception. The
misspelling of the word "PROTI" alongwith the last syllable 'X' and a
deceptively similar trade dress
came to learn that the respondent
has obtained registration of a deceptively similar mark "MAMU ROSE" for
identical goods i.e., rice falling ... similarities and
deceptive imitations of the impugned mark are bound to create confusion
and deception amongst consumers. Both products are in the similar
category
trade dress and get up of the impugned product is also
deceptively similar to the products being sold by the petitioner. The impugned
products ... marks and similar trade dress used against the similar
products in the same class, creates a real possibility for deception and
confusion. The explanation offered
