https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185320 The appeal was dismissed by the court, affirming the decision of the single Judge. The court found no likelihood of confusion or deception between the trademarks "STAYFREE" and "COMFIT ALWAYS." It emphasized the distinctiveness of the packaging and the message conveyed by the word "STAYFREE." The court did not address the descriptive versus distinctive nature of the trademark "STAYFREE" or the preliminary objections raised by the defendants, leaving these matters for consideration during the trial. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs. en-us Fri, 04 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2016 17:25:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185320 The appeal was dismissed by the court, affirming the decision of the single Judge. The court found no likelihood of confusion or deception between the trademarks "STAYFREE" and "COMFIT ALWAYS." It emphasized the distinctiveness of the packaging and the message conveyed by the word "STAYFREE." The court did not address the descriptive versus distinctive nature of the trademark "STAYFREE" or the preliminary objections raised by the defendants, leaving these matters for consideration during the trial. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185320