https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198692 Deceptive similarity under Section 2(d) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 turns on whether the rival mark so nearly resembles the registered mark as to be likely to deceive or confuse. In assessing that question, the nature of the marks, the goods, the class of purchasers, the mode of purchase, and surrounding circumstances are relevant. Applied to prescription cancer medicines supplied as Schedule H drugs, the common suffix "exate" was treated as derived from the active ingredient and not monopolisable. The differing initial syllables and distinct phonetic and visual impressions meant the marks were not deceptively similar, so temporary injunction was not warranted. en-us Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:59:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198692 Deceptive similarity under Section 2(d) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 turns on whether the rival mark so nearly resembles the registered mark as to be likely to deceive or confuse. In assessing that question, the nature of the marks, the goods, the class of purchasers, the mode of purchase, and surrounding circumstances are relevant. Applied to prescription cancer medicines supplied as Schedule H drugs, the common suffix "exate" was treated as derived from the active ingredient and not monopolisable. The differing initial syllables and distinct phonetic and visual impressions meant the marks were not deceptively similar, so temporary injunction was not warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198692