https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243686 The plaintiff's request for ad-interim injunction against use of the mark "4T PREMIUM" failed because the expression was assessed in the context of the parties' full labels, including the house marks "VALVOLINE" and "AGIP". "4T" was treated as indicating four-stroke engine oil, while "PREMIUM" was found to be descriptive and laudatory. The rival packaging, colour scheme and overall get-up were materially different, so the defendant's use of the expression as part of its complete mark did not create a sufficient likelihood of confusion or deception for interim restraint. The injunction application was dismissed. en-us Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:23:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243686 The plaintiff's request for ad-interim injunction against use of the mark "4T PREMIUM" failed because the expression was assessed in the context of the parties' full labels, including the house marks "VALVOLINE" and "AGIP". "4T" was treated as indicating four-stroke engine oil, while "PREMIUM" was found to be descriptive and laudatory. The rival packaging, colour scheme and overall get-up were materially different, so the defendant's use of the expression as part of its complete mark did not create a sufficient likelihood of confusion or deception for interim restraint. The injunction application was dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243686