<?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>2013 (5) TMI 247 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233662</link>
    <description>Deceptive similarity between a registered mark and an adopted mark can constitute trademark infringement where prior use and subsisting rights are established. Here, the plaintiff proved rights in GULABARI, and the defendant&#039;s use of GULVARI was found deceptively similar on unrebutted evidence, leading to a finding of infringement. Trade dress protection also extended to the plaintiff&#039;s distinctive pink, white and silver packaging scheme; the defendant&#039;s similar get-up, colour combination, cap and bottle size created a likelihood of consumer confusion and supported passing off. Injunctive relief was granted against use of the challenged mark and trade dress.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 13:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 247 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233662</link>
      <description>Deceptive similarity between a registered mark and an adopted mark can constitute trademark infringement where prior use and subsisting rights are established. Here, the plaintiff proved rights in GULABARI, and the defendant&#039;s use of GULVARI was found deceptively similar on unrebutted evidence, leading to a finding of infringement. Trade dress protection also extended to the plaintiff&#039;s distinctive pink, white and silver packaging scheme; the defendant&#039;s similar get-up, colour combination, cap and bottle size created a likelihood of consumer confusion and supported passing off. Injunctive relief was granted against use of the challenged mark and trade dress.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>