Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the defendant was entitled to use the mark Cleanzo or Praveen Cleanzo on its goods in the face of the plaintiff's prior registered trade mark and established user, and whether the interlocutory injunction deserved to be modified.
Analysis: The plaintiff showed prima facie prior adoption and use of the mark, supported by registration, renewal, advertisements, invoices and official documents. The defendant's claim of earlier user was not substantiated. The goods of both parties were held to be similar in nature, purpose and trade channels, and classification differences were found irrelevant in the context of passing off and infringement. The defendant's label and get-up were found deceptively similar, and the addition of the prefix Praveen did not remove the likelihood of confusion. Where the essential features of the registered mark are adopted, dissimilarities in surrounding matter do not cure the infringement or passing off.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to injunction, and the clarification permitting use of Praveen Cleanzo was not justified. The defendant was restrained from using the mark Cleanzo in any form whatsoever.