https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194691 A descriptive trade mark derived from the basic drug name was treated as lacking inherent distinctiveness, and the absence of ? no, avoid non-English. The respondent's admission and the record were insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning, so the registration was liable to removal. Applying overall similarity, visual, structural and phonetic resemblance, the rival marks were also found likely to confuse purchasers of medicinal goods. The applicant was accepted as a person aggrieved because it operated in the same line of business and the registration prejudiced its interests. Delay in filing the reply was condoned on sufficient cause, as the explanation showed no negligence or lack of bona fides. en-us Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194691 A descriptive trade mark derived from the basic drug name was treated as lacking inherent distinctiveness, and the absence of ? no, avoid non-English. The respondent's admission and the record were insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning, so the registration was liable to removal. Applying overall similarity, visual, structural and phonetic resemblance, the rival marks were also found likely to confuse purchasers of medicinal goods. The applicant was accepted as a person aggrieved because it operated in the same line of business and the registration prejudiced its interests. Delay in filing the reply was condoned on sufficient cause, as the explanation showed no negligence or lack of bona fides. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194691