https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198307 Use of HARA QILLA and the QILLA device for rice was found deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered QILLA marks because the dominant and essential feature was QILLA, and the added prefix and minor device changes did not avoid confusion. Honest concurrent use was not established, as the defendants produced no supporting material of continuous use, while the plaintiff acted promptly on discovering the impugned use; delay, laches and acquiescence therefore did not bar interim protection. The plaintiff also showed a prima facie case for injunction through prior use, registration, likely confusion and risk to goodwill, so continued use of the impugned mark and device was restrained pending trial. en-us Fri, 29 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:28:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198307 Use of HARA QILLA and the QILLA device for rice was found deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered QILLA marks because the dominant and essential feature was QILLA, and the added prefix and minor device changes did not avoid confusion. Honest concurrent use was not established, as the defendants produced no supporting material of continuous use, while the plaintiff acted promptly on discovering the impugned use; delay, laches and acquiescence therefore did not bar interim protection. The plaintiff also showed a prima facie case for injunction through prior use, registration, likely confusion and risk to goodwill, so continued use of the impugned mark and device was restrained pending trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198307