As per case facts, Appellant, a seller of Ayurvedic products under 'FOREST ESSENTIALS' since 2000 and 'FOREST ESSENTIALS BABY' since 2006, sought an injunction against Respondent for using 'BABY FOREST' ... for similar baby products, alleging deceptive similarity and customer confusion. The Single Judge denied the injunction, deeming 'FOREST' generic and the marks not deceptively similar, stating consumers might cross-check origins. The appeal challenges this refusal. The question arose whether the Respondent's 'BABY FOREST' mark was deceptively similar to the Appellant's 'FOREST ESSENTIALS' and its baby product variants, warranting an injunction. Finally, the Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the marks, as composite, were not deceptively similar, and 'FOREST' is a generic term. While disagreeing with the Single Judge's test for 'initial confusion', the court upheld the dismissal, finding insufficient grounds for an interim injunction on the facts, noting that evidence of actual confusion requires final testing.