Despite Respondent 1’s endeavour to create distinctions, it is crystal clear that the marks are confusingly/deceptively similar to the petitioner’s registered trade mark. Such use of a similar mark would invariably mislead consumers and members into believing that the goods under the impugned mark were sourced from the petitioner.
The Surest Way to Legal Research!™
Uniting the authentic and reliable content from India’s leading law publisher with cutting-edge technology to create a powerful legal research resource.
Now available at your desk or on the move, spend less time researching, and have more time to focus on crafting your arguments.
