<?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 358 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109361</link>
    <description>Deceptive similarity in altered product trade dress can continue to amount to breach of an injunction where the dominant visual features remain intact; cosmetic changes to textmarkers, including minor alterations to lettering, layout and barrel colour, were treated as insufficient to avoid confusion and the breach was found to persist. Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure was stated to be available in the High Court&#039;s original jurisdiction despite the existence of contempt powers, because the rule addresses disobedience or breach without requiring wilful disobedience. On the facts, civil detention was refused, but conditional attachment was directed as enforcement relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:54:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 358 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109361</link>
      <description>Deceptive similarity in altered product trade dress can continue to amount to breach of an injunction where the dominant visual features remain intact; cosmetic changes to textmarkers, including minor alterations to lettering, layout and barrel colour, were treated as insufficient to avoid confusion and the breach was found to persist. Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure was stated to be available in the High Court&#039;s original jurisdiction despite the existence of contempt powers, because the rule addresses disobedience or breach without requiring wilful disobedience. On the facts, civil detention was refused, but conditional attachment was directed as enforcement relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>