https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198702 A composite trade mark does not ordinarily confer exclusive rights in a descriptive constituent element unless that part is independently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning. Applying that principle, the court found no prima facie exclusivity over "Ayur" and no sufficient basis to restrain use of "Himani Ayurdhara" or "Himani Ayucare" on that footing. However, the plaintiff's registered word mark "Ayu" attracted limited interlocutory protection: standalone use of "Ayucare" was considered likely to cause confusion and suggest association with the plaintiff's goods, so relief was confined to that use without the differentiating prefix "Himani". en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:29:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198702 A composite trade mark does not ordinarily confer exclusive rights in a descriptive constituent element unless that part is independently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning. Applying that principle, the court found no prima facie exclusivity over "Ayur" and no sufficient basis to restrain use of "Himani Ayurdhara" or "Himani Ayucare" on that footing. However, the plaintiff's registered word mark "Ayu" attracted limited interlocutory protection: standalone use of "Ayucare" was considered likely to cause confusion and suggest association with the plaintiff's goods, so relief was confined to that use without the differentiating prefix "Himani". Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198702