https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196941 In assessing deceptive similarity under trade mark infringement principles, competing marks must be compared as complete words from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, focusing on overall visual, structural and phonetic resemblance rather than dissecting one mark into parts. On that approach, "CLINIQUE" and "SKINCLINIQ" were found not to be identical and not sufficiently similar to create likely confusion, with the substantial price difference between the products further reducing the scope for confusion. The interim injunction was therefore not justified. en-us Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:21:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196941 In assessing deceptive similarity under trade mark infringement principles, competing marks must be compared as complete words from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, focusing on overall visual, structural and phonetic resemblance rather than dissecting one mark into parts. On that approach, "CLINIQUE" and "SKINCLINIQ" were found not to be identical and not sufficiently similar to create likely confusion, with the substantial price difference between the products further reducing the scope for confusion. The interim injunction was therefore not justified. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196941