https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471573 Passing off involving wholly dissimilar goods requires stronger proof of misrepresentation and a real likelihood of damage. Where protection is claimed for a business rather than particular goods, the claimant must show a sufficiently extensive reputation for the public to associate the other business with it. A reputation confined to telecommunications did not establish that liquor purchasers would associate the liquor business with the claimant. Independently, a prior artistic label comprising the word mark, font, design and colour scheme received copyright protection where identical reproduction constituted dishonest copying. Copyright in the artistic work supported injunctive protection despite the absence of an independently established passing-off claim. en-us Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2026 17:38:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471573 Passing off involving wholly dissimilar goods requires stronger proof of misrepresentation and a real likelihood of damage. Where protection is claimed for a business rather than particular goods, the claimant must show a sufficiently extensive reputation for the public to associate the other business with it. A reputation confined to telecommunications did not establish that liquor purchasers would associate the liquor business with the claimant. Independently, a prior artistic label comprising the word mark, font, design and colour scheme received copyright protection where identical reproduction constituted dishonest copying. Copyright in the artistic work supported injunctive protection despite the absence of an independently established passing-off claim. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471573