<?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>2004 (2) TMI 356 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109359</link>
    <description>A design right asserted after the commencement of the Designs Act, 2000 is governed by that Act, and the defendant may invoke the statutory defences available under the new regime; the earlier registration continues only to the extent preserved by the saving provisions. For interim injunction, the plaintiff must independently show a prima facie entitlement to protection of the design, including proprietorship and validity of the registered design. Mere reliance on the registration certificate was insufficient here, and the claimed passing off case lacked a factual foundation. Interlocutory relief was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:32:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 356 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109359</link>
      <description>A design right asserted after the commencement of the Designs Act, 2000 is governed by that Act, and the defendant may invoke the statutory defences available under the new regime; the earlier registration continues only to the extent preserved by the saving provisions. For interim injunction, the plaintiff must independently show a prima facie entitlement to protection of the design, including proprietorship and validity of the registered design. Mere reliance on the registration certificate was insufficient here, and the claimed passing off case lacked a factual foundation. Interlocutory relief was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>