https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96779 The court held that the defendants' company name was not deceptive or likely to cause confusion. The plaintiffs did not present enough evidence to show public deception or that their company was commonly known as 'Asiatic'. The addition of 'New' in the defendants' name was considered a key distinguishing factor. As a result, the case was dismissed with costs in favor of the defendants. en-us Thu, 08 Sep 1938 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:57:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96779 The court held that the defendants' company name was not deceptive or likely to cause confusion. The plaintiffs did not present enough evidence to show public deception or that their company was commonly known as 'Asiatic'. The addition of 'New' in the defendants' name was considered a key distinguishing factor. As a result, the case was dismissed with costs in favor of the defendants. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Sep 1938 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96779