https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196946 Prior use and registration of BOOM PLUS were treated as strong support for interim protection against use of SUPER BOOM, because the competing marks were found to be deceptively similar in phonetic, visual and overall commercial impression. The court applied section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to treat use of a registered mark, including as part of a trade name, as infringing use. On the facts, the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, so interim injunction was warranted and refusal of injunction was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:32:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196946 Prior use and registration of BOOM PLUS were treated as strong support for interim protection against use of SUPER BOOM, because the competing marks were found to be deceptively similar in phonetic, visual and overall commercial impression. The court applied section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to treat use of a registered mark, including as part of a trade name, as infringing use. On the facts, the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, so interim injunction was warranted and refusal of injunction was unsustainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196946