https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236057 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because sales of the impugned goods in Delhi were admitted, so no further proof was required. The plaintiff's prior use and registration of FENA were accepted, and the earlier Registrar's finding on deceptive similarity was given weight; however, confusion between FENA and FINA was found only for Class 3 goods, not for dissimilar goods such as lubricants outside that class. The defendants failed to establish prior user rights or registration in their favour. Damages and rendition of accounts were refused for want of evidence of loss, and a permanent injunction was granted only in respect of Class 3 goods. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236057 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because sales of the impugned goods in Delhi were admitted, so no further proof was required. The plaintiff's prior use and registration of FENA were accepted, and the earlier Registrar's finding on deceptive similarity was given weight; however, confusion between FENA and FINA was found only for Class 3 goods, not for dissimilar goods such as lubricants outside that class. The defendants failed to establish prior user rights or registration in their favour. Damages and rendition of accounts were refused for want of evidence of loss, and a permanent injunction was granted only in respect of Class 3 goods. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236057