https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198166 Deceptive similarity in trade mark and passing off disputes is assessed by comparing the marks and packaging as a whole, with emphasis on the likelihood of confusion among average unwary purchasers rather than proof of actual deception. Striking similarity in phonetic, visual, and get-up features can justify interim restraint against continued use of the impugned mark and containers. Prompt action after discovery, prior registration, and recent adoption by the defendant may defeat objections based on delay, laches, or acquiescence. Legal proceedings taken to protect a registered mark are not groundless threats, and related applications for leave to sue for damages may fail. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:07:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198166 Deceptive similarity in trade mark and passing off disputes is assessed by comparing the marks and packaging as a whole, with emphasis on the likelihood of confusion among average unwary purchasers rather than proof of actual deception. Striking similarity in phonetic, visual, and get-up features can justify interim restraint against continued use of the impugned mark and containers. Prompt action after discovery, prior registration, and recent adoption by the defendant may defeat objections based on delay, laches, or acquiescence. Legal proceedings taken to protect a registered mark are not groundless threats, and related applications for leave to sue for damages may fail. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 13 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198166