https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275967 A later trade mark was found deceptively similar and dishonestly adopted, so the Registrar was required to refuse registration under Section 18. Although the earlier mark was registered only in Delhi and there was no proof of use or reputation outside that territory, Sections 11(a) and 12(1) operated only within Delhi on those facts and did not bar registration outside it. The Court nevertheless held that the visual resemblance, common vernacular meaning of the device as "Sher," and shared label expression established dishonest imitation. The order permitting registration was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:36:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275967 A later trade mark was found deceptively similar and dishonestly adopted, so the Registrar was required to refuse registration under Section 18. Although the earlier mark was registered only in Delhi and there was no proof of use or reputation outside that territory, Sections 11(a) and 12(1) operated only within Delhi on those facts and did not bar registration outside it. The Court nevertheless held that the visual resemblance, common vernacular meaning of the device as "Sher," and shared label expression established dishonest imitation. The order permitting registration was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275967