<?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>1955 (4) TMI 34 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160285</link>
    <description>The Registrar may require a disclaimer only where a registered trade mark contains a separately unregistered or non-distinctive element, and the power must be exercised on sound judicial principles for good cause. The disclaimer mechanism limits the proprietor&#039;s statutory monopoly without affecting any independent rights outside the Act. On the facts, the word &quot;Shree&quot; was not separately registered and was found incapable of exclusive appropriation; the materials also showed a risk of overbroad proprietary claims. Those considerations justified the disclaimer, and appellate interference was unwarranted absent misdirection or improper exercise of discretion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2014 08:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (4) TMI 34 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160285</link>
      <description>The Registrar may require a disclaimer only where a registered trade mark contains a separately unregistered or non-distinctive element, and the power must be exercised on sound judicial principles for good cause. The disclaimer mechanism limits the proprietor&#039;s statutory monopoly without affecting any independent rights outside the Act. On the facts, the word &quot;Shree&quot; was not separately registered and was found incapable of exclusive appropriation; the materials also showed a risk of overbroad proprietary claims. Those considerations justified the disclaimer, and appellate interference was unwarranted absent misdirection or improper exercise of discretion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>