https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161400 In a passing off action, the Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 with concurrent orders granting interim injunction. The courts below were justified in finding a prima facie case of prior user on the basis of the materials then available, even though the authenticity of disputed assignments and related documents could not be finally decided at the interlocutory stage. Prior user remained a material factor, and the findings on likely confusion, loss of reputation and irreparable injury supported the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. Objections based on delay and laches did not justify disturbance of the concurrent discretionary orders, and additional disputed documents first produced in appeal were not reopened. en-us Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161400 In a passing off action, the Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 with concurrent orders granting interim injunction. The courts below were justified in finding a prima facie case of prior user on the basis of the materials then available, even though the authenticity of disputed assignments and related documents could not be finally decided at the interlocutory stage. Prior user remained a material factor, and the findings on likely confusion, loss of reputation and irreparable injury supported the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. Objections based on delay and laches did not justify disturbance of the concurrent discretionary orders, and additional disputed documents first produced in appeal were not reopened. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161400