https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160633 After seven years, a Part A registered trade mark becomes conclusive as to validity, and it cannot be impeached merely for want of original distinctiveness. Section 11 was treated as addressing prohibitory grounds such as deception, confusion, or inherent disentitlement, not a bare failure to meet the initial requirements of registration. On the evidence, there was no fraud, no substantial proof that the marks had become deceptive or confusing, and no adequate material to show that they had ceased to distinguish the proprietor's goods. Sporadic third-party use was insufficient to prove that the marks had become publici juris or abandoned, so cancellation was refused under sections 11, 32 and 56. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Aug 2014 08:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160633 After seven years, a Part A registered trade mark becomes conclusive as to validity, and it cannot be impeached merely for want of original distinctiveness. Section 11 was treated as addressing prohibitory grounds such as deception, confusion, or inherent disentitlement, not a bare failure to meet the initial requirements of registration. On the evidence, there was no fraud, no substantial proof that the marks had become deceptive or confusing, and no adequate material to show that they had ceased to distinguish the proprietor's goods. Sporadic third-party use was insufficient to prove that the marks had become publici juris or abandoned, so cancellation was refused under sections 11, 32 and 56. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 18 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160633