impugned mark PEBBLE,
which is phonetically, structurally and visually identical/deceptively similar
to Plaintiff's trademark/label . It is the case of the Plaintiff ... impugned mark PEBBLE is phonetically, visually, structurally
identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark/label
, which is registered for goods being inter
Anil Agarwal11, to contend that, where deception is deliberate,
injunction must follow. On the aspect of deceptive similarity, Mr.
Hemant Singh cites Parle Products ... confusion or deception, even if the marks are visually
dissimilar.
46. The two most important considerations, while examining the
issue of deceptive similarity, have been
marks used by
respondent no.1, dealing in allied goods, is deceptively similar to its
marks. The appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme ... laid down the following
test for deciding the question of deceptive similarity:-
"35. Broadly stated in an action for passing-off on the basis
other mark identical with or deceptively similar to
Plaintiff's trademarks 'DHOLA MAARU'/ ' ' and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed ... alcohol
beverages was about to commercially launch country liquor under
deceptively similar trademarks 'DHOLA THARU'/' '
and , through his
proprietorship firm
marks
and are visually, structurally,
phonetically identical with and/ or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's prior RPG
Marks in each and every aspect ... deception or confusion or mistake in the minds of persons
accustomed to the existing trade mark;
(vii) While ascertaining the question of deceptive similarity
registered trademark and similarity of the
goods or services; or (b) similarity to the registered trademark and identity
or similarity of the goods or services ... phonetic similarity and not identity. It needs no
reiteration that phonetic identity or similarity is an important index of
similarity or deceptive similarity
submits that the respondents have given no explanation for
adopting a deceptively-similar mark for identical goods as that of the
appellant.
5. The learned ... favour and against the respondents,
as the respondents have adopted the deceptively-similar mark just prior to
the filing of the suit.
6. He submits
trade name „M.G.
Cables (India)‟, which is nearly identical/deceptively similar to the marks of
the plaintiff namely ... Cables (India)‟ or any other mark or
trade name, nearly identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s trademark
annexed as Annexure B to the plaint is different and
not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's
trademark/label attached as Annexure ... Plaintiffs' label and packaging. The marks are also
confusingly and deceptively similar.
26. The Defendant has filed its written statement at an early stage
domain name
www.dhanifinance.com or any identical or deceptively similar trade
mark/name/logo or domain name either as a trade mark, trading style ... confusing
similarity in domain names may be a ground for complaint and similarity
is to be decided on the possibility of deception amongst potential
customers
