said word when the said word was used with a distinctive prefix or suffix. In support of this contention, learned senior counsel appearing ... defendants have chosen to use their respective words/marks with the distinctive prefix. It is well settled legal position that each case
information or intellectual aspect. Use of the same name or uniquely distinctive prefix or suffix of the name is always with a motive to exploit ... other is in small letters is not a determining distinction. Predominant prefix or suffix of the title or mark or phonetic similarity
that the rival prefixes were distinct and dissimilar and commonly used and easily identifiable and were well recognized distinctive prefixes. In support of the same ... deceptively similar to the respondents trade mark "Parkitane". The prefix "Paci", "Pace", "Par", "Parki" and suffixes
mark which clearly distinguish
one from the other. Neither of the distinctive prefixes can be slurred over. As
regards the Plaintiff's trade mark ... monopoly over the words 'Thyro' , the distinctive letters 'Le' in the prefix of the
Defendants mark LETHYROX clearly distinguishes it from
ordinary use. In fact the distinctiveness of the syllable 'TO' and its place as a prefix to the word mark 'TOCILLIN ... confusion despite my finding that the word CILLIN follows a distinctive prefix.
25. In this view of the matter Mr. Tulzapurkar's reliance upon
only descriptive whereas 'Shiv' and 'Bhog' are completely distinctive features of the two marks and therefore there is no likelihood that ... whole would be a descriptive word and is having a distinct prefix of Shiv, a God of Hindu mythology. There also cannot be a monopoly
trade mark of the appellant PARKITANE even after holding
that the prefixes "Pace", "Par" and "Paki" and suffixes ... India would be confused between the rival
marks which have such distinctive prefixes. In the absence of any likelihood of
confusion or deception, the Plaintiff
whole would be a descriptive word
and is having a distinct prefix of Shiv, a God of Hindu
mythology. There also cannot be a monopoly
said prefix was combined with the commonly used suffix TANE. It is also contended that the prefix PACI of the Plaintiff's mark ... rival prefixes were distinct and dissimilar and being commonly used and are easily identifiable and are well recognized as distinct prefixes. The details
common words like 'Pride' cannot be
monopolized and distinct prefixes create different commercial
impressions. Based on same, defendant contends presence of a
common ... Krishna" or
"Pride") cannot be exclusively claimed when distinct prefixes or
house marks are present to prevent confusion. Om Prakash
Gupta
