https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196703 Deceptive similarity in trade mark cases is assessed on the overall impression created on the ordinary consumer, and the marks "Udta Panchhi" and "Panchhi Chaap" were treated as confusingly similar because the shared word element and bird device dominated the comparison. Mere delay or laches did not defeat the registered proprietor's claim absent clear acquiescence or prejudice, and the appellant could not rely on honest concurrent user because honest adoption at inception was not shown. Reverse confusion was also held inapplicable. The respondent's infringement action was maintainable on the basis of its registrations and ownership, and the plea of concealment failed. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:09:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196703 Deceptive similarity in trade mark cases is assessed on the overall impression created on the ordinary consumer, and the marks "Udta Panchhi" and "Panchhi Chaap" were treated as confusingly similar because the shared word element and bird device dominated the comparison. Mere delay or laches did not defeat the registered proprietor's claim absent clear acquiescence or prejudice, and the appellant could not rely on honest concurrent user because honest adoption at inception was not shown. Reverse confusion was also held inapplicable. The respondent's infringement action was maintainable on the basis of its registrations and ownership, and the plea of concealment failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196703