https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196099 In a passing off dispute, prior user and overall deceptive similarity in the rival marks and packaging justified ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Court gave weight to phonetic resemblance, visual impression, goodwill, and likelihood of confusion, and held that minor differences and the plea that the word was generic did not defeat interim protection on the facts. Although appellate restraint usually applies against concurrent refusal of interlocutory relief, interference was warranted because the appellants showed a strong prima facie case and clear need for immediate protection. Interim relief was therefore granted pending trial. en-us Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:56:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196099 In a passing off dispute, prior user and overall deceptive similarity in the rival marks and packaging justified ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Court gave weight to phonetic resemblance, visual impression, goodwill, and likelihood of confusion, and held that minor differences and the plea that the word was generic did not defeat interim protection on the facts. Although appellate restraint usually applies against concurrent refusal of interlocutory relief, interference was warranted because the appellants showed a strong prima facie case and clear need for immediate protection. Interim relief was therefore granted pending trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196099