https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160507 A limited family settlement was construed as conferring only restricted retail use of the registered mark, because the arrangement permitted direct sale in specified outlets and did not authorise manufacturing or broader marketing under the trade name. Registration was treated as giving exclusive statutory rights, and use of a deceptively similar label, packaging and prominent trade name was held to support infringement and passing off; defences based on concurrent user, acquiescence, waiver and regulatory compliance were rejected. Interlocutory restraint was justified because the proprietor showed a prima facie right, likelihood of confusion and risk of irreparable injury to goodwill, so use of the mark in the disputed manner was injuncted. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2025 14:34:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160507 A limited family settlement was construed as conferring only restricted retail use of the registered mark, because the arrangement permitted direct sale in specified outlets and did not authorise manufacturing or broader marketing under the trade name. Registration was treated as giving exclusive statutory rights, and use of a deceptively similar label, packaging and prominent trade name was held to support infringement and passing off; defences based on concurrent user, acquiescence, waiver and regulatory compliance were rejected. Interlocutory restraint was justified because the proprietor showed a prima facie right, likelihood of confusion and risk of irreparable injury to goodwill, so use of the mark in the disputed manner was injuncted. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160507