<?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>1996 (8) TMI 508 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161302</link>
    <description>In a passing off action, the Supreme Court held that a temporary injunction may be granted against a registered proprietor where the plaintiff shows prior user, goodwill, trans-border reputation and a prima facie likelihood of deception or confusion. The defendants&#039; registration did not defeat the common law remedy, and the court found no convincing proof of bona fide adoption, delay, acquiescence, laches or abandonment by the plaintiffs. As the interlocutory relief was exercised on settled principles and supported by the record, appellate interference with the concurrent orders was unwarranted. The injunction was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 508 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161302</link>
      <description>In a passing off action, the Supreme Court held that a temporary injunction may be granted against a registered proprietor where the plaintiff shows prior user, goodwill, trans-border reputation and a prima facie likelihood of deception or confusion. The defendants&#039; registration did not defeat the common law remedy, and the court found no convincing proof of bona fide adoption, delay, acquiescence, laches or abandonment by the plaintiffs. As the interlocutory relief was exercised on settled principles and supported by the record, appellate interference with the concurrent orders was unwarranted. The injunction was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>