<?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 (9) TMI 558 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109417</link>
    <description>A source-identifying feature used on ophthalmic blanks or lenses may constitute a trade mark, even if it is also embodied in a physical form and registered as a design, where its function is to distinguish trade origin rather than create aesthetic appeal. The Delhi HC held prima facie that the &quot;two ribs&quot; feature served as a trade identifier and was not merely a design. It also accepted prima facie evidence of prior use, goodwill and trans-border reputation, and found that misuse by others could amount to passing off. Interim protection was therefore granted to restrain use of the feature, while the counter-request for restraint was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:20:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 558 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109417</link>
      <description>A source-identifying feature used on ophthalmic blanks or lenses may constitute a trade mark, even if it is also embodied in a physical form and registered as a design, where its function is to distinguish trade origin rather than create aesthetic appeal. The Delhi HC held prima facie that the &quot;two ribs&quot; feature served as a trade identifier and was not merely a design. It also accepted prima facie evidence of prior use, goodwill and trans-border reputation, and found that misuse by others could amount to passing off. Interim protection was therefore granted to restrain use of the feature, while the counter-request for restraint was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>