https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196573 A registered composite trade mark gives exclusivity to the mark as a whole, but not automatically to a disclaimed or non-distinctive part unless that part is separately shown to be distinctive. On the evidence, the expression "WHIP TOPPING" remained descriptive and generic, with no proved secondary meaning or transborder reputation. The defendant's mark and packaging were not found deceptively similar, as the rival trade dress and dominant features were materially different; infringement and passing off therefore failed. With no underlying actionable wrong, the claim for damages also failed. The court further found no concealment, acquiescence, or bar from delay and laches. en-us Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196573 A registered composite trade mark gives exclusivity to the mark as a whole, but not automatically to a disclaimed or non-distinctive part unless that part is separately shown to be distinctive. On the evidence, the expression "WHIP TOPPING" remained descriptive and generic, with no proved secondary meaning or transborder reputation. The defendant's mark and packaging were not found deceptively similar, as the rival trade dress and dominant features were materially different; infringement and passing off therefore failed. With no underlying actionable wrong, the claim for damages also failed. The court further found no concealment, acquiescence, or bar from delay and laches. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196573