finding that
the marks of the appellant and respondent were deceptively
similar was inconsistent with the finding that the packing
in which the appellant ... establish that the trade mark
used by the defendant is deceptively similar. This has
necessarily to be done by a comparison of the two marks
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 , s. 2(d)--Deceptively
similar'--Proper approach by court for determining if one
mark is deceptively similar ... course of trade, a mark which is identical with or
deceptively similar to, the trade mark, in relation to any
goods in respect of which
mark
and/or any mark which may be identical and/or
deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered
trade mark and thereby restrain them ... label in
larger size, in first alphabet definitely creates
deception and confusion. It is deceptively similar
with the trade-mark of the plaintiff. Therefore
words "Mahendra & Mahendra" or any word which is
deceptively similar to "Mahindra" and/or 'Mahindra & Mahindra ... phonetically,
visually and structurally almost identical and in any event deceptively
similar. In the prospectus of the defendant the words "Mahendra and
Mahendra
Vitamin preparations--'DROPOVIT" whether a trade mark
deceptively similar to 'PROTOVIT' so as to offened s.
12(1)--'DROPOVIT ... consideration were: (i) whether the word 'DROPOVIT' was
deceptively similar to the word 'PROTOVIT' and thus
offended the provision
favour. It held that the
defendants' mark was 'deceptively similar' within section
2(1)(d) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks ... inasmuch as the
defendant used its mark which was 'deceptively similar' to
the plaintiff's trade mark. Apart from the right arising
Marks Act, 1958 , ss. 2(j) and 12-Trade
marks when deceptively similar-'Sri Andal' and 'Sri Ambal'
though names ... different goddesses are deceptively
similar in sound within meaning of s. 12(1)-Visual
dissimilarity not decisive when sounds deceptively similar.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant
unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) to (c)
(d) "deceptively similar":--A mark shall be deemed
to be deceptively similar to another mark ... that the appellant is guilty of adopting a mark which is
deceptively similar and/ or causes confusion.
Contention raised before us by Mr. Desai
favour. It held that the
defendants' mark was 'deceptively similar' within section
2(1)(d) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks ... inasmuch as the
defendant used its mark which was 'deceptively similar' to
the plaintiff's trade mark. Apart from the right arising
other label/packaging and/or trade mark that may be
identical/deceptively similar to IMPERIAL BLUE label or packaging and/or
deceptively similar ... likely to cause confusion or deception.
Mere etymological or lexical differences were considered immaterial. While
several precedents on deceptively similar composite marks were cited
