Appeal dismissed; interim relief refused as marks not deceptively similar-laudatory term non-distinctive, no likelihood of confusion

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The SC dismissed the appeal and refused interim relief, holding that the defendant's mark is not deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known registered marks. Applying the anti-dissection rule, dominant-feature analysis and the average-consumer (imperfect recollection) test, the Court found the common laudatory term to be non-distinctive and not monopolizable absent cogent evidence of acquired distinctiveness. Differences in trade dress, label design, packaging, typography and overall commercial impression negated a real likelihood of confusion or passing off. The judgment was confined to the interlocutory stage; the Commercial Court was directed to try and dispose of the suit on merits within four months.....