https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127951 Trade mark similarity is assessed by comparing the marks as a whole from the standpoint of an average purchaser with imperfect recollection, having regard to the nature of the goods, the class of buyers, and surrounding circumstances; for medicinal goods, phonetic and structural resemblance may outweigh differences in literal meaning. Applying that test, the mark was treated as deceptively similar and registration was refused. The text also states that prolonged, knowing inaction while another trader builds goodwill may amount to acquiescence and special circumstances; on the stated facts, prior use, open advertising, and delayed objection were treated as sufficient. The appeal succeeded and the Registrar's order was restored. en-us Fri, 27 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Dec 2013 15:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127951 Trade mark similarity is assessed by comparing the marks as a whole from the standpoint of an average purchaser with imperfect recollection, having regard to the nature of the goods, the class of buyers, and surrounding circumstances; for medicinal goods, phonetic and structural resemblance may outweigh differences in literal meaning. Applying that test, the mark was treated as deceptively similar and registration was refused. The text also states that prolonged, knowing inaction while another trader builds goodwill may amount to acquiescence and special circumstances; on the stated facts, prior use, open advertising, and delayed objection were treated as sufficient. The appeal succeeded and the Registrar's order was restored. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 27 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127951