https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197949 Registration of a device mark does not extinguish an independent passing off claim, and it does not by itself confer exclusivity over the word element where the complaint is misrepresentation of the mark as a whole. On the facts, the competing marks, products, customer base, and trade channels were sufficiently similar to create a real likelihood of confusion under the test of the average purchaser with imperfect recollection, justifying interim protection. Delay, laches, acquiescence, and common use were rejected because the record did not show informed waiver, substantial third-party use, or any effective permission to the defendant. en-us Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Mar 2026 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197949 Registration of a device mark does not extinguish an independent passing off claim, and it does not by itself confer exclusivity over the word element where the complaint is misrepresentation of the mark as a whole. On the facts, the competing marks, products, customer base, and trade channels were sufficiently similar to create a real likelihood of confusion under the test of the average purchaser with imperfect recollection, justifying interim protection. Delay, laches, acquiescence, and common use were rejected because the record did not show informed waiver, substantial third-party use, or any effective permission to the defendant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197949