- (1.) ON hearing Mr. Saurabh Suman Sinha, counsel for the appellant at some length, we are satisfied that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board rightly came to the conclusion that there was no similarity between the registered trade mark of the appellant and the mark applied for registration by the respondents and there was no scope of any deception or confusion between the two.
(2.) WE find no infirmity in the order of the Board and see no scope of interference in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. At this stage Mr. Sinha, counsel submitted that this order may not cause any prejudice to the case of the appellant in respect of other applications for registration of similar trade marks pending at different stages before the authorities.
(3.) THE apprehension is misconcieved as this order is passed in this particular case and it does not relate to any other proceedings.;