https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239609 Interim trademark protection for PATTA was maintained because the defendant did not dispute the plaintiff's rights in that mark or assert any independent right, so no interference was required at that stage. By contrast, restraint over PTA was not justified because the plaintiff's claim of prior use was inconsistent with its pleadings and trademark applications, the record did not show PTA embossed on its products, and the defendant was the registered proprietor. On those materials, the plaintiff failed to establish prior user, honest adoption, or a prima facie case for injunction against use of PTA, so protection for that mark was vacated. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239609 Interim trademark protection for PATTA was maintained because the defendant did not dispute the plaintiff's rights in that mark or assert any independent right, so no interference was required at that stage. By contrast, restraint over PTA was not justified because the plaintiff's claim of prior use was inconsistent with its pleadings and trademark applications, the record did not show PTA embossed on its products, and the defendant was the registered proprietor. On those materials, the plaintiff failed to establish prior user, honest adoption, or a prima facie case for injunction against use of PTA, so protection for that mark was vacated. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239609