- Case number
- (T)CMA(TM) 206/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Abdul Quddhose
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
A refusal on deceptive similarity was quashed as cryptic and non-speaking. The applicant's reply had argued that the two marks move in different trade channels, one a finishing product in the textile industry and the other used in building construction, and had cited the four cardinal factors for deceptive similarity, none of which the order addressed. The mark should have been published and any opposition left to be filed.
Disposition
Allowed. Impugned order quashed and the Registry directed to publish the mark in the journal.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.