Composite trade mark protection does not create exclusivity in a word element when marks are compared as a whole.

A composite or device trade mark does not, by itself, confer exclusive rights in a constituent word, and deceptively similar marks must be assessed as a whole rather than by dissecting individual elements. Applying that approach, the Court found that the appellant could not claim monopoly over the word element "VASUNDHRA", especially where it appeared to be common or weak and used by multiple traders. The appellant's prior position before the Trade Marks Registry also undermined its claim to exclusivity over the isolated word. On a prima facie comparison, the marks were not deceptively similar, so interim injunctive relief was refused and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant established a prima facie case for interim injunction on the ground that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered composite marks and whether the appellant could claim exclusivity over the word element 'VASUNDHRA'.

Analysis: The registration relied upon by the appellant was in composite or device marks, not in the word mark 'VASUNDHRA' simpliciter. In determining deceptive similarity, competing marks must be compared as a whole and not dissected into individual components. The protection attached to a composite mark does not automatically confer a monopoly over a constituent word, particularly where the word is shown to be common or weak and used by multiple traders. The Court also noted the appellant's prior stand before the Trade Marks Registry, where it had emphasized that its marks must be considered as wholes, making its present attempt to claim exclusivity over the isolated word inconsistent. On a prima facie comparison, the two marks were found not deceptively similar, and the appellant failed to establish a case for interim restraint.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to interim injunctive relief, and the challenge to the refusal of injunction failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was found to be without merit, and the order declining interim protection was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of a composite or device trademark does not, by itself, confer exclusive rights in a constituent word, and deceptive similarity must be assessed by comparing the competing marks as a whole.

---