https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236916 A coined mark with established cross-border reputation and customer access from India was held protectable in India despite the absence of a physical Indian business. The defendants' use of the identical mark as part of their trade name for identical services was found likely to cause confusion and amount to trademark infringement and passing off. The court also treated the unexplained adoption of the coined mark as supporting dishonest appropriation. Injunction, damages and costs were granted, and the defendants were permanently restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar mark. en-us Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:43:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236916 A coined mark with established cross-border reputation and customer access from India was held protectable in India despite the absence of a physical Indian business. The defendants' use of the identical mark as part of their trade name for identical services was found likely to cause confusion and amount to trademark infringement and passing off. The court also treated the unexplained adoption of the coined mark as supporting dishonest appropriation. Injunction, damages and costs were granted, and the defendants were permanently restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar mark. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236916