learnt that the defendant has also adopted MAXCURE MEDICITI, which is
deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade mark; (ix) the defendant is providing
full ... applying the test of
similarity / deceptive similarity, and which test has to be in
relation to how similarity / deceptive similarity is perceived in
the minds
defendants from using the impugned
mark or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s mark
„CENTRAL PARK‟. The defendant was directed to take ... course of trade, a mark which is
identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in
relation to goods or services in respect
possibility of confusion or deception . If ultimately, it is
held that there is no deceptive similarity between the rival trade marks, then the
matter really ... deceptive similarity
between the rival trade marks, the Court should consider their overall similarity,
including the similarity of the main idea and the similarity
trade mark „DECITAS‟ or any other mark
which is structurally or deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s registered trade
mark „DECITEX‟ registered under Class ... defendant‟s
product under the impugned trade mark DECITAS which is deceptively
similar to the plaintiff‟s trade mark DECITEX. Further the defendant‟s drug
deceptive mark 'Hearing
Aid Centre' with prefix 'Afru' adopted by the defendant is exact reproduction and
deceptively similar to the plaintiffs ... case of likelihood of confusion and deception and the
two marks are deceptively similar.
46. Following the dictum of Cadila (supra) and tests laid
down
Label) in relation
to goods in class 19 which is deceptively similar to the mark of the Plaintiff
and constitutes infringement and passing ... minds of the members in the public. The use of
deceptively similar mark AADHAR SHILA for the same or any class of
goods as that
very cautious in dealing with medicinal
products. If rival deceptively similar marks are
permitted to stay in the marker in respect of
pharmaceutical products, there ... competing marks that have been applied to
pharmaceutical products, the deceptively similar mark
that had entered the market later in time has to go.
Prima
respondent's trademark by using deceptively
similar mark “MRI” or any other marks similar or deceptively similar to the
mark of the respondent namely ... wilfully and dishonestly adopted the mark which is deceptively similar to
that of the respondent and falsely applied the same as their trademark and
trade
other mark/trade mark/logo/device which is
identical and deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs logo mark.
CS (COMM.) 1031/2018 Page ... trade mark or
logo/device, which is identical to and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟
well known Logo Mark amounting to infringement
violation thereof by the
Defendants on account of use of a deceptively similar mark FENTEL for
identical pharmaceutical preparation.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF ... restrain use of any identical or deceptively similar marks by unauthorized
persons. Being a 'Part A' registration and over seven years
