https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280680 A distinctive trade mark is acquired through actual prior use on goods, and superior title follows priority of adoption and use rather than registration or market duration alone. On the facts, the petitioner had imported and marketed products bearing the mark in India before the respondents adopted it, so the petitioner was held to be the proprietor in preference to the respondents. The confusion ground failed because Indian reputation was not shown to make deception inevitable, but the respondents' adoption of a copied mark and shield device disentitled them to protection. As the respondents were not genuine proprietors, their applications for registration were refused and concurrent registration was rejected. en-us Wed, 26 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 May 2019 17:31:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280680 A distinctive trade mark is acquired through actual prior use on goods, and superior title follows priority of adoption and use rather than registration or market duration alone. On the facts, the petitioner had imported and marketed products bearing the mark in India before the respondents adopted it, so the petitioner was held to be the proprietor in preference to the respondents. The confusion ground failed because Indian reputation was not shown to make deception inevitable, but the respondents' adoption of a copied mark and shield device disentitled them to protection. As the respondents were not genuine proprietors, their applications for registration were refused and concurrent registration was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280680