https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304895 In trademark infringement of a composite mark, the mark must be viewed as a whole, but the anti-dissection rule does not prevent assessment of the relative prominence of constituent elements. Dominant features may be examined to gauge overall commercial impression, and even partial appropriation can infringe where essential features are taken. The respondent's coined and arbitrary mark was held entitled to strong protection, and the appellant's mark was found to bear substantial phonetic resemblance. Applying the test of confusion from the perspective of an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the Court found no basis to exclude confusion or identify a uniquely dominant constituent, and upheld the interim injunction. en-us Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:50:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304895 In trademark infringement of a composite mark, the mark must be viewed as a whole, but the anti-dissection rule does not prevent assessment of the relative prominence of constituent elements. Dominant features may be examined to gauge overall commercial impression, and even partial appropriation can infringe where essential features are taken. The respondent's coined and arbitrary mark was held entitled to strong protection, and the appellant's mark was found to bear substantial phonetic resemblance. Applying the test of confusion from the perspective of an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the Court found no basis to exclude confusion or identify a uniquely dominant constituent, and upheld the interim injunction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304895