<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1953 (5) TMI 13 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163228</link>
    <description>A statutory appeal to a High Court carries the ordinary intra-court appellate incidents of that court unless the special enactment expressly excludes them; on that basis, clause 15 Letters Patent appeal was available from the single Judge&#039;s decision under the Trade Marks Act. In trade mark registration disputes, the controlling test is whether the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the mind of the average purchaser, not a side-by-side comparison of the devices. The applicant bears the burden of showing absence of deception or confusion. Applying that standard, the bird device was found deceptively similar to the opponent&#039;s well-known mark, so refusal of registration was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (5) TMI 13 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163228</link>
      <description>A statutory appeal to a High Court carries the ordinary intra-court appellate incidents of that court unless the special enactment expressly excludes them; on that basis, clause 15 Letters Patent appeal was available from the single Judge&#039;s decision under the Trade Marks Act. In trade mark registration disputes, the controlling test is whether the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the mind of the average purchaser, not a side-by-side comparison of the devices. The applicant bears the burden of showing absence of deception or confusion. Applying that standard, the bird device was found deceptively similar to the opponent&#039;s well-known mark, so refusal of registration was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>