https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108694 In pharmaceutical trade marks, deceptive phonetic similarity is assessed with e strictness because confusion may affect doctors, chemists, and consumers. The court found "BICILLIN" and "BIOCILIN" strongly similar in sound and likely to be confused when spoken with different accents or read hurriedly. It held that objections under the provisions against deceptively similar and confusing marks were made out, while the argument based on section 9 did not assist the respondent. The appellant's mark was also noted as having acquired trade reputation, and the competing registration was rejected because the mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:35:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108694 In pharmaceutical trade marks, deceptive phonetic similarity is assessed with e strictness because confusion may affect doctors, chemists, and consumers. The court found "BICILLIN" and "BIOCILIN" strongly similar in sound and likely to be confused when spoken with different accents or read hurriedly. It held that objections under the provisions against deceptively similar and confusing marks were made out, while the argument based on section 9 did not assist the respondent. The appellant's mark was also noted as having acquired trade reputation, and the competing registration was rejected because the mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108694