Trademark depreciation and section 14A adjustments: ITAT applies consistency, independent book-profit computation, and no disallowance without exempt ...
Rebuttable search presumptions and corroboration standards shaped deletion of unsubstantiated additions, while rental income and limited profit estima...
The petition challenges registration of a corporate name that is structurally and phonetically identical to an earlier corporate group name where the distinctive element 'REFEX' predominates. The court applied precedents requiring that business dissimilarity is not a proper basis for the Registrar/Regional Director to refuse to act; therefore the administrative refusal was held improper and set aside. The decision recognises prominence of a distinctive word across multiple group companies on the register and treats likelihood of confusion and near-identity with an earlier corporate name and registered trade mark as determinative. Petition allowed and impugned order quashed.
The petition challenges registration of a corporate name that is structurally and phonetically identical to an earlier corporate group name where the distinctive element 'REFEX' predominates. The court applied precedents requiring that business dissimilarity is not a proper basis for the Registrar/Regional Director to refuse to act; therefore the administrative refusal was held improper and set aside. The decision recognises prominence of a distinctive word across multiple group companies on the register and treats likelihood of confusion and near-identity with an earlier corporate name and registered trade mark as determinative. Petition allowed and impugned order quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.