<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (3) TMI 706 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306589</link>
    <description>An assignee of a registered trade mark may seek interim protection even while registration of the assignment remains pending, where prima facie title is shown and the assignment is not disputed by a better claimant. Deceptive similarity must be assessed by the overall impression of the marks and packaging, including visual and phonetic resemblance, colour scheme, and get-up, rather than by microscopic comparison of isolated differences. Applying that approach, the court found the defendant&#039;s mark and packaging deceptively similar and held that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case for interim injunction, so interlocutory protection was granted pending trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2023 12:13:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 706 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306589</link>
      <description>An assignee of a registered trade mark may seek interim protection even while registration of the assignment remains pending, where prima facie title is shown and the assignment is not disputed by a better claimant. Deceptive similarity must be assessed by the overall impression of the marks and packaging, including visual and phonetic resemblance, colour scheme, and get-up, rather than by microscopic comparison of isolated differences. Applying that approach, the court found the defendant&#039;s mark and packaging deceptively similar and held that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case for interim injunction, so interlocutory protection was granted pending trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>