TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark and corporate name AGILENT, including the domain name agilentconstruction.com, on the footing that AGILENT was a well-known trademark and the defendant's use was deceptively similar and impermissible.
Analysis: The plaintiffs established long, continuous and extensive use of the mark AGILENT, its registration in India across multiple classes, and its international reputation. The Court found that the mark qualified as a well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and that the defendant had adopted the mark in its trade name and domain name only recently, without showing any meaningful goodwill or honest concurrent use. The Court also noted the prohibition in Section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956 against registration of a company name identical with or too nearly resembling an existing company name or registered trade mark.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief, and the defendant was restrained from using AGILENT, or any deceptively similar mark, in its business name, domain name, or trade.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
