<?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>1985 (9) TMI 340 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160258</link>
    <description>A trade mark application may be based on a genuine intention to use the mark through a proposed registered user, provided the commercial arrangement is bona fide and not a device for trafficking. The statutory fiction in section 48(2) extends permitted use by a registered user to the proprietor where that use is material under the Act, and this can support proposed use at the date of application if a definite user arrangement already exists. On the stated facts, the collaboration structure, control safeguards, absence of royalty, and continuous steps to commercialise the mark showed bona fide intended use in India, so the rectification challenge under section 46(1)(a) failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (9) TMI 340 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160258</link>
      <description>A trade mark application may be based on a genuine intention to use the mark through a proposed registered user, provided the commercial arrangement is bona fide and not a device for trafficking. The statutory fiction in section 48(2) extends permitted use by a registered user to the proprietor where that use is material under the Act, and this can support proposed use at the date of application if a definite user arrangement already exists. On the stated facts, the collaboration structure, control safeguards, absence of royalty, and continuous steps to commercialise the mark showed bona fide intended use in India, so the rectification challenge under section 46(1)(a) failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>