https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196591 The expression "Sugar Free" was treated as descriptive and generic because it directly conveyed that the goods contained no sugar, so it lacked inherent distinctiveness and could not be monopolised under trade mark principles. Any acquired distinctiveness was confined to the appellant's limited product segment and did not bar bona fide descriptive use by competitors. On passing off, the respondents' use was found to be descriptive rather than source-identifying, with no sufficient likelihood of deception among the relevant consumer base. The limited restraint on oversized font was upheld as an interlocutory measure to keep the use descriptive and avoid source association. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196591 The expression "Sugar Free" was treated as descriptive and generic because it directly conveyed that the goods contained no sugar, so it lacked inherent distinctiveness and could not be monopolised under trade mark principles. Any acquired distinctiveness was confined to the appellant's limited product segment and did not bar bona fide descriptive use by competitors. On passing off, the respondents' use was found to be descriptive rather than source-identifying, with no sufficient likelihood of deception among the relevant consumer base. The limited restraint on oversized font was upheld as an interlocutory measure to keep the use descriptive and avoid source association. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196591