name 'Gaitonde' and therefore the usage can only be deceptively similar but not the same trade name or brand name; and that ... benefit of SSIU was extended to a brand name which is deceptively similar but not the same trade name or brand name. They also pleaded
appellants had known the other party using its deceptively similar name and they were trading in their own name has to be shown ... Packkwell Traders (supra) have examined identical matter wherein the issue of deceptively similar and not similar name of the specified person using brand name, came
because the brand name may at best be treated as 'deceptively similar'. He also placed reliance on the decision in the case ... order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another the brand and essential features are to be considered. They should
name registration in their name, however he, strongly contends that they are deceptively dissimilar. In view of the Bench's decision rendered ... wherein also the Division Bench held that units using deceptively/similarly trade marks would not be entitled from the benefit of the Notification. He submits
name registration in their name, however he, strongly contends that they are deceptively dissimilar. In view of the Bench's decision rendered ... wherein also the Division Bench held that units using deceptively/similarly trade marks would not be entitled from the benefit of the Notification. He submits
