https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195591 In medicinal trade mark disputes, deceptive similarity is assessed from the perspective of the ordinary purchaser while also considering the nature of pharmaceutical sales, prescription controls, and trade usage. A descriptive or public juris element cannot be monopolised. On the facts, "LIV" was treated as descriptive of liver-related products, and the marks were distinguished by their dominant suffixes, packaging, colour scheme, get-up, and presentation; confusion was therefore found remote and injunctive relief on infringement and passing off could not stand. The proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was also treated as mandatory, so failure to comply with the notice and service requirements justified vacation of the ex parte injunction. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Nov 2017 17:32:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195591 In medicinal trade mark disputes, deceptive similarity is assessed from the perspective of the ordinary purchaser while also considering the nature of pharmaceutical sales, prescription controls, and trade usage. A descriptive or public juris element cannot be monopolised. On the facts, "LIV" was treated as descriptive of liver-related products, and the marks were distinguished by their dominant suffixes, packaging, colour scheme, get-up, and presentation; confusion was therefore found remote and injunctive relief on infringement and passing off could not stand. The proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was also treated as mandatory, so failure to comply with the notice and service requirements justified vacation of the ex parte injunction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195591