1. Plaintiff was selling cosmetic products under the registered Trade Mark “Lakme”. Defended was using the Trade Mark “Like-Me” for the same class of products. It was held that there was striking resemblance between the two wards. The two words are also phonetically similar. There is every possibility of deception and and confusion being caused in the mind of the prospective buyer of the plaintiff’s products. injunction was made permanent (PTC 1996,567).

2. The plaintiffs are registered proprietors of trade marks ‘CASTROL’ ‘INDROL’ ‘INDROL’ ‘MONOGRAME’ in respect of industrial oils and greases and also held copyright in INDROL device. Infringement was alleged on ground of deceptive similarity by the use of trade mark INDROL with similar colour combination, get up and lay out in connection with similar product, i.e. brake fluids. Interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and the same was confirmed by the High Court (PTC 1995, 37).
3. Plaintiff were registered proprietors of the trade mark ‘MITASO’, the defendants used the marks ‘META-SHOW’. Infringement was alleged on the ground that the two mark on the face of it were deceptively similar phonetically and any ordinary customer could be easily misled in treating the goods of one as coming from the source of another, injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade mark ‘META-SHOW’ was granted (PTC 1995,105).
4. The party in the trade mark registry made an application for registration of trade mark “FIXACOL”. The opponents were registered proprietors of trade mark ‘FEVICAL’ who pleaded rejection of the application on the grounds of deceptive similarity and confusion. The application was refused registration on the above grounds (PTC 1995, 105).
5. The plaintiffs were a reputed manufacturer of dental cream COLGATE. Defendants use the mark COLGATE with is phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s mark with the deceptively similar latter in white with red background so as to cause confusion in the minds of the customer and to pass off its products as COLGATE. Hence the mark was restrained through injunction (PTC 1995, 389).
6. The Supreme Court in Amritdhara v. Satya Deo observed that the ordinary purchaser would go more by the overall structure and phonetic similarity and the nature of medicine he has previously purchased or has been told about, or about which he has otherwise learnt and which he want to purchase . The word ‘Amritdhara’ were held deceptively similar through registration of ‘LAKSHMANDHARA’ was allowed on the basis of honest concurrent user (AIR 1963 SC 453).
7. The Plaintiff seeking injunction against the Defendant from release of the film under the title “HARI PUTTER” on the ground of parties trade mark “HARRY POTTER” despite phonetic similarity, audience of “HARRY POTTER” is altogether different from that of “HARI PUTTER” and therefore, no injunction can be granted. Warner Bros. Vs. Harinder Kohli 2008 (155) DLT Page 56 DHC.