The Court noted that the defendant had not replied to a cease and desist notice and a follow up legal notice sent by the petitioner.
Thereafter, based on a comparison between the mark of the plaintiff and the defendant, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Court issued notice to the defendant and restrained it from using, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any goods or services under defendant’s trademark.
Source: Barandbench
