<?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>2002 (11) TMI 684 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108602</link>
    <description>Automobile electrical components used exclusively in vehicles were treated as vehicle parts for trade mark classification purposes and were correctly placed in Class 12. The court stressed that classification should turn on the primary nature of the goods, assessed commercially by their composition, function, trade channel and class of purchasers, rather than mechanically following registry classification guides. Because the goods were understood in trade as parts of vehicles, similar entries in other classes did not control. On that basis, the foundation for rectification on alleged wrong classification and non-use failed, and the rectification order was unsustainable and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:34:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 684 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108602</link>
      <description>Automobile electrical components used exclusively in vehicles were treated as vehicle parts for trade mark classification purposes and were correctly placed in Class 12. The court stressed that classification should turn on the primary nature of the goods, assessed commercially by their composition, function, trade channel and class of purchasers, rather than mechanically following registry classification guides. Because the goods were understood in trade as parts of vehicles, similar entries in other classes did not control. On that basis, the foundation for rectification on alleged wrong classification and non-use failed, and the rectification order was unsustainable and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>