https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429789 A composite or device trade mark does not, by itself, confer exclusive rights in a constituent word, and deceptively similar marks must be assessed as a whole rather than by dissecting individual elements. Applying that approach, the Court found that the appellant could not claim monopoly over the word element "VASUNDHRA", especially where it appeared to be common or weak and used by multiple traders. The appellant's prior position before the Trade Marks Registry also undermined its claim to exclusivity over the isolated word. On a prima facie comparison, the marks were not deceptively similar, so interim injunctive relief was refused and the appeal failed. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2022 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429789 A composite or device trade mark does not, by itself, confer exclusive rights in a constituent word, and deceptively similar marks must be assessed as a whole rather than by dissecting individual elements. Applying that approach, the Court found that the appellant could not claim monopoly over the word element "VASUNDHRA", especially where it appeared to be common or weak and used by multiple traders. The appellant's prior position before the Trade Marks Registry also undermined its claim to exclusivity over the isolated word. On a prima facie comparison, the marks were not deceptively similar, so interim injunctive relief was refused and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429789