Search Indian IP Case Law
Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographical indications — organised by Act and section, each with a link to the judgment on the court’s website.
24 results
for “Deceptive Similarity”
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
Deceptive similarity between trade marks must be assessed by comparing the marks as a whole for their overall phonetic, visual and structural resemblance, from the standpoint of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recol…
AcquiescenceDeceptive SimilarityHonest Concurrent UseImperfect RecollectionTrade MarksCadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
In assessing deceptive similarity between trade marks for medicinal products, courts must apply a stricter standard than for ordinary goods because confusion can endanger public health, having regard to the nature of the marks, th…
Deceptive SimilarityPassing OffPharmaceutical TrademarkPhonetic SimilarityTrade MarksColumbia Pictures Industries, Inc v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Section 11(2) does not require a mark to have been formally declared well-known before its proprietor can invoke that status to oppose a similar or identical mark on dissimilar goods; it is enough that the mark is, in substance, e…
Bad Faith AdoptionCross-class ProtectionOppositionRemandTrade MarksCorn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.
In opposition proceedings, the reputation of a trade mark for assessing likelihood of confusion attaches to the mark itself and not merely to the reputation of the proprietor; deceptive similarity may be found even between goods t…
Deceptive SimilarityGoods Of Same DescriptionOppositionReputation Of MarkTrade MarksHamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
While composite trade marks must be compared as a whole under the anti-dissection rule, it is permissible to examine a dominant or significant common element in determining the overall commercial impression, and a composite mark m…
Anti-Dissection RuleComposite MarksDeceptive SimilarityTrade DressTrade MarksHavells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Even a registered proprietor may be restrained from using a trade mark where the ingredients of passing off are established. Section 27(2) preserves the common-law remedy of passing off notwithstanding the statutory rights arising…
Anti-Dissection RuleDeceptive SimilarityDishonest AdoptionPassing OffTrade MarksIndustria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Section 11(2) does not require an earlier mark to have a formal declaration of well-known status before its owner can oppose a later mark; the provision only requires that the mark is well known. The term 'entitled' in Explanation…
Anti-Dissection RuleBad FaithDeceptive SimilarityPhonetic SimilarityTrade MarksKaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
An action for infringement of a registered trade mark is a statutory remedy in which the use of a deceptively similar mark is itself actionable regardless of get-up, packaging or intent to deceive, whereas an action for passing of…
Acquired DistinctivenessDeceptive SimilarityDescriptive MarksInfringementTrade MarksMarriott Worldwide Corporation v. Hotel Marriot Prime & Anr.
Where a defendant fails to contest a commercial suit despite service and a subsisting interim injunction, a court may grant summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure without recording oral evidence; and a …
DamagesDeceptive SimilarityPassing OffTrademark InfringementTrade MarksMilmet Oftho Industries & Ors. v. Allergan Inc.
In a passing off action concerning medicinal products with identical marks, prior use in the world market can prevail over a domestic company's later domestic use, since pharmaceutical trade and medical literature are internationa…
Deceptive SimilarityPassing OffPharmaceutical TrademarkPrior User