The SC dismissed the appeal and refused interim relief, holding...

The SC dismissed the appeal and refused interim relief, holding that the defendant's mark is not deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known registered marks. Applying the anti-dissection rule, dominant-feature analysis and the average-consumer (imperfect recollection) test, the Court found the common laudatory term to be non-distinctive and not monopolizable absent cogent evidence of acquired distinctiveness. Differences in trade dress, label design, packaging, typography and overall commercial impression negated a real likelihood of confusion or passing off. The judgment was confined to the interlocutory stage; the Commercial Court was directed to try and dispose of the suit on merits within four months.