Passing off and trademark confusion rejected where "4T PREMIUM" was used with distinct house marks and packaging.

The plaintiff's request for ad-interim injunction against use of the mark "4T PREMIUM" failed because the expression was assessed in the context of the parties' full labels, including the house marks "VALVOLINE" and "AGIP". "4T" was treated as indicating four-stroke engine oil, while "PREMIUM" was found to be descriptive and laudatory. The rival packaging, colour scheme and overall get-up were materially different, so the defendant's use of the expression as part of its complete mark did not create a sufficient likelihood of confusion or deception for interim restraint. The injunction application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark "4T PREMIUM" on the grounds of trademark infringement and passing off.

Analysis: The mark was used by both sides along with their respective house marks and logos, namely "VALVOLINE" by the plaintiff and "AGIP" by the defendant. The expression "4T" was treated as indicative of four-stroke engine oil, while "PREMIUM" was regarded as descriptive and laudatory. The packaging, colour scheme and overall get-up of the rival products were materially different. In these circumstances, the use of the expression by the defendant, viewed as part of the complete trade mark used by it, did not create a sufficient likelihood of confusion or deception to justify interim restraint.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to interim injunction and the application was dismissed.

---