Confusing - Judgment Search Results

Shanmugavel Vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1996)1MLJ84

..... identical user a prima facie case of likelihood of deception or confusion must first be made out by the plaintiff before the ..... the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion but where the alleged infringement consists of using not the exact ..... person with an average recollection of the plaintiffs registered mark to confuse it with the pattern or picture represented by that mark .....

Shanmugavel Vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited and 2 ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1995(2)CTC260; (1996)IMLJ84

..... to learned counsel that shows that even highly educated people are confused and equate trinity mail to the mail of the plaintiff the ..... identical user a prima facie case of likelihood of deception or confusion must first be made out by the plaintiff before the court ..... the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion but where the alleged infringement consists of using not the exact .....

Montari Industries Ltd. Vs. Montari Overseas Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 57(1995)DLT771; 1995(33)DRJ271

..... s name as montari overseas ltd is likely to cause serious confusion to the public and the people dealing with the two companies ..... at the date of the proceedings where there is probability of confusion in business an injunction will be granted even though the defendants ..... or any other word deceptively similar with or likely to cause confusion that montari as a part of its corporate name the operation .....

Qualitex Co. Vs. Jacobson Products Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... of protected color competitors and courts will suffer from shade confusion as they try to decide whether use of a similar ..... words or phrases or symbols are sufficiently similar in context to confuse buyers they have had to compare for example such words ..... see 15 u s c 1124 ability to prevent importation of confusingly similar goods 1072 constructive notice of ownership 1065 incontestible status .....

M/S. Bindal Toys Vs. M/S. Gemini Toys

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi161

..... impugned trade mark the common purchaser will be deceived and get confused the device of globe in both the marks is identical besides ..... device hence the use of globe by the respondent would create confusion placed reliance on the decision of the supreme court in the ..... of the cartons was such that the children could have got confused the distinctive and essential feature of the plaintiff s flora pencils .....

The Hearst Corporation Vs. Dalal Street Communications Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1995)2CALLT346(HC)

..... such according to the defendant no possibility of deception or confusion additionally the defendant has submitted that the balance of convenience ..... of infringement viz similarity and the likelihood of deception or confusion as far as similarity is concerned what is required is ..... of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would be likely to confuse the defendant s use of the mark e square on .....

Seminole Tribe of FlA. Vs. Florida

Court: US Supreme Court

..... court expressly disagreed with the plurality s rationale moreover the deeply fractured decision has created confusion among the lower courts that have sought to understand and apply it the plurality s ..... income maintenance 392 u s 96 1989 congress understandably concluded that it could correct the confusion by amending the relevant statute to make its intentions to override such a defense unmistakably .....

Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. Vs. Pinette

Court: US Supreme Court

..... to suggest that neutral laws are invalid whenever hypothetical observers may even reason ably confuse an incidental benefit to religion with state 777 endorsement ante at 768 on the ..... government speech endorsing religion see ante at 768 acknowledging that hypothetical observers may even reasonably confuse an incidental benefit to religion with state endorsement emphasis in original see also ante .....

Smt. Meena Jayendra Thakur Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1995CriLJ2533

..... represent his case before the concerned authorities in fact according to him the appellant was confused whether he should represent against his detention for smuggling of goods and or abetting the ..... consistent with the purpose for detention found in the detention order it left the detenu confused whether he should represent against the grounds in the detention order or the satisfaction recorded .....

U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Karamchari As ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1995SC1484; (1995)4SCC276; [1995]3SCR1004

..... sd prem narain managing director14 it appears that there was some confusion in the minds of the petitioners with regard to the nature ..... 16 the corporation did not make any effort to remove this confusion in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf before the high ..... certain extent the corporation can be held responsible for creating some confusion in this regard because the letter dated may 7 11 1994 .....