https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325603 Prior user rights prevailed over later registration in a trade mark dispute involving ROFOL and PROFOL. Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects continuous earlier use and prevents a registered proprietor from restraining a prior user of an identical or deceptively similar mark. Section 47 also reflects the policy against retaining unused marks, so registration does not create an indefeasible right where bona fide use has been absent for a substantial period. On interlocutory principles, prior commercial use, prima facie goodwill, and risk of dilution justified continuation of the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. en-us Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2016 16:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325603 Prior user rights prevailed over later registration in a trade mark dispute involving ROFOL and PROFOL. Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects continuous earlier use and prevents a registered proprietor from restraining a prior user of an identical or deceptively similar mark. Section 47 also reflects the policy against retaining unused marks, so registration does not create an indefeasible right where bona fide use has been absent for a substantial period. On interlocutory principles, prior commercial use, prima facie goodwill, and risk of dilution justified continuation of the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325603