<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (4) TMI 405 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108160</link>
    <description>A court receiver appointed over dissolved partnership assets may sue to protect registered trade marks, because a receiver can preserve and enforce property rights in the estate even though legal title remains elsewhere. Passing off may also be maintained where the partnership has ceased trading, if subsisting goodwill continues as a protectable asset until winding up and disposal. Deceptive similarity was found where the rival marks and get-up were phonetically and visually close, with similar packaging and overall presentation, creating a substantial likelihood of confusion. On that basis, interlocutory protection for infringement and passing off was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:10:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 405 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108160</link>
      <description>A court receiver appointed over dissolved partnership assets may sue to protect registered trade marks, because a receiver can preserve and enforce property rights in the estate even though legal title remains elsewhere. Passing off may also be maintained where the partnership has ceased trading, if subsisting goodwill continues as a protectable asset until winding up and disposal. Deceptive similarity was found where the rival marks and get-up were phonetically and visually close, with similar packaging and overall presentation, creating a substantial likelihood of confusion. On that basis, interlocutory protection for infringement and passing off was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>