https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221226 Article 227 interference in a trade mark registration dispute is limited where the applicant cannot consistently establish that the application was filed in the wrong name by inadvertence and has not followed the prescribed correction process. The material showed inconsistent stands across the original application, counter statement, affidavit evidence and amendment attempts, while the earlier remand was confined to amendment of the applicant's name on the basis of counsel's mistake and proper evidence. The later attempt to change the applicant's constitution was unsupported, no convincing prejudice was shown, and priority of use remained relevant because later applications for the same mark were already pending. The petition was not entitled to interference. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:36:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221226 Article 227 interference in a trade mark registration dispute is limited where the applicant cannot consistently establish that the application was filed in the wrong name by inadvertence and has not followed the prescribed correction process. The material showed inconsistent stands across the original application, counter statement, affidavit evidence and amendment attempts, while the earlier remand was confined to amendment of the applicant's name on the basis of counsel's mistake and proper evidence. The later attempt to change the applicant's constitution was unsupported, no convincing prejudice was shown, and priority of use remained relevant because later applications for the same mark were already pending. The petition was not entitled to interference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221226