https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198020 Deceptive similarity is assessed by the overall impression of the marks from the viewpoint of an ordinary purchaser with imperfect recollection, not by microscopic comparison. Applying that test, visual resemblance, common get-up, arrangement and phonetic similarity were sufficient to create a likelihood of deception or confusion. The defence of honest concurrent user requires bona fides; where adoption is shown to be not honest, and public interest in maintaining the purity of the register is engaged, the defence fails. An objection to affidavits and supporting material for alleged procedural non-compliance was rejected, as the material was properly filed and, in any event, the comparison of the marks independently supported the conclusion. en-us Tue, 06 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 17:51:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198020 Deceptive similarity is assessed by the overall impression of the marks from the viewpoint of an ordinary purchaser with imperfect recollection, not by microscopic comparison. Applying that test, visual resemblance, common get-up, arrangement and phonetic similarity were sufficient to create a likelihood of deception or confusion. The defence of honest concurrent user requires bona fides; where adoption is shown to be not honest, and public interest in maintaining the purity of the register is engaged, the defence fails. An objection to affidavits and supporting material for alleged procedural non-compliance was rejected, as the material was properly filed and, in any event, the comparison of the marks independently supported the conclusion. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198020