https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197948 Trade mark rights in "Liv.52" were upheld on the basis of valid registration, long use and market presence, but infringement was not proved against "LIV-T". Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court held that the marks were not deceptively similar overall in visual, structural or phonetic impression, with no evidence of actual confusion and with product and distribution differences reducing mistake. The prefix "LIV" was treated as a generic, non-distinctive abbreviation for liver and could not be monopolised. As infringement failed, rendition of accounts also did not arise, and the suit failed. en-us Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:29:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197948 Trade mark rights in "Liv.52" were upheld on the basis of valid registration, long use and market presence, but infringement was not proved against "LIV-T". Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court held that the marks were not deceptively similar overall in visual, structural or phonetic impression, with no evidence of actual confusion and with product and distribution differences reducing mistake. The prefix "LIV" was treated as a generic, non-distinctive abbreviation for liver and could not be monopolised. As infringement failed, rendition of accounts also did not arise, and the suit failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197948