https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197551 General Electric, GE and GE (monogram) were found to be well-known marks, supported by extensive use, registrations, advertising, turnover and enforcement history. The decisive feature of the plaintiff's registered mark was the letters GE, and the defendants' proposed use of GE was held phonetically and visually similar to that essential element. Applying deceptive similarity and anti-dilution principles under Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Court found the use likely to take unfair advantage of and harm the distinctive character and repute of the plaintiff's marks. A threatened infringement claim was also maintainable as a quia timet action, so absence of proved actual use did not bar injunctive relief. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jan 2018 18:24:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197551 General Electric, GE and GE (monogram) were found to be well-known marks, supported by extensive use, registrations, advertising, turnover and enforcement history. The decisive feature of the plaintiff's registered mark was the letters GE, and the defendants' proposed use of GE was held phonetically and visually similar to that essential element. Applying deceptive similarity and anti-dilution principles under Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Court found the use likely to take unfair advantage of and harm the distinctive character and repute of the plaintiff's marks. A threatened infringement claim was also maintainable as a quia timet action, so absence of proved actual use did not bar injunctive relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197551