https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196575 Descriptive word marks such as "LOSORB", "LO-SORB" and "LOW ABSORB" were treated as common English expressions indicating lower oil absorption, and exclusive protection was unavailable without clear secondary meaning acquired through long, undisturbed use. The respondent's use of "WITH LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY" was held to be descriptive, supported by its own prominent house mark, and not likely to cause deception, so the passing off claim failed. Registration was only prima facie evidence of validity, and at the interlocutory stage the court could examine whether the registration was vulnerable. The statutory defence of bona fide descriptive use therefore defeated the infringement claim and interim restraint. en-us Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196575 Descriptive word marks such as "LOSORB", "LO-SORB" and "LOW ABSORB" were treated as common English expressions indicating lower oil absorption, and exclusive protection was unavailable without clear secondary meaning acquired through long, undisturbed use. The respondent's use of "WITH LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY" was held to be descriptive, supported by its own prominent house mark, and not likely to cause deception, so the passing off claim failed. Registration was only prima facie evidence of validity, and at the interlocutory stage the court could examine whether the registration was vulnerable. The statutory defence of bona fide descriptive use therefore defeated the infringement claim and interim restraint. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196575