https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198704 In interlocutory trade mark disputes, the impugned mark must be assessed as a whole for visual and phonetic resemblance, the nature of the goods, the class of purchasers, and the impact of any common descriptive or generic element. Applying that approach, the shared prefix derived from "energy" was treated as descriptive and insufficient, by itself, to establish exclusivity. The suffixes "JEX" and "JASE" were found materially dissimilar, and the different product forms and trade channels reduced any likelihood of confusion. Prima facie deception or passing off was not shown, so temporary injunction was not warranted and the refusal of interim relief was upheld. en-us Fri, 19 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:38:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198704 In interlocutory trade mark disputes, the impugned mark must be assessed as a whole for visual and phonetic resemblance, the nature of the goods, the class of purchasers, and the impact of any common descriptive or generic element. Applying that approach, the shared prefix derived from "energy" was treated as descriptive and insufficient, by itself, to establish exclusivity. The suffixes "JEX" and "JASE" were found materially dissimilar, and the different product forms and trade channels reduced any likelihood of confusion. Prima facie deception or passing off was not shown, so temporary injunction was not warranted and the refusal of interim relief was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198704