Tagged “likelihood-of-confusion”

Renaissance Hotel Holdings v. B. Vijaya Sai (2022): confusion is presumed where an identical mark meets identical services

The Supreme Court held that when a defendant adopts a mark identical to a registered trade mark for identical goods or services, likelihood of confusion is presumed under Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. The plaintiff need not separately prove confusion, reputation, or damage, and the Section 30(1) honest-practices defence is unavailable unless both honesty and the absence of unfair advantage are shown.