<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (4) TMI 296 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198021</link>
    <description>Trade mark similarity is assessed by the total commercial impression of the marks, not by a side-by-side comparison of isolated differences. A proposed device mark showing two birds on a twig, even with the words &quot;Bul Bul,&quot; was found deceptively similar to earlier registered bird-on-twig marks because the overall visual resemblance remained likely to confuse purchasers of the same description of goods. The plea of honest concurrent user also failed where adoption was made with knowledge of the prior marks and genuine concurrent use of the picture mark was not established. Registration was therefore refused and the opposition succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2018 17:56:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 296 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198021</link>
      <description>Trade mark similarity is assessed by the total commercial impression of the marks, not by a side-by-side comparison of isolated differences. A proposed device mark showing two birds on a twig, even with the words &quot;Bul Bul,&quot; was found deceptively similar to earlier registered bird-on-twig marks because the overall visual resemblance remained likely to confuse purchasers of the same description of goods. The plea of honest concurrent user also failed where adoption was made with knowledge of the prior marks and genuine concurrent use of the picture mark was not established. Registration was therefore refused and the opposition succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>