<?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>2016 (3) TMI 834 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325650</link>
    <description>A passing off claimant seeking ex parte ad interim injunction against a registered proprietor must show a strong prima facie case before interim restraint will issue. The Court treated the dispute as turning on whether the shared expression was descriptive or suggestive, whether prior use and foreign registration justified immediate protection, and whether the respondent&#039;s registration altered the interim balance. Incomplete pleadings, the absence of the respondent&#039;s defence, and the appellant&#039;s own disclaimers prevented a finding that injunction should follow as of right. On that material, the appellant did not establish entitlement to ex parte ad interim relief, and refusal of interim protection was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:41:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 834 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325650</link>
      <description>A passing off claimant seeking ex parte ad interim injunction against a registered proprietor must show a strong prima facie case before interim restraint will issue. The Court treated the dispute as turning on whether the shared expression was descriptive or suggestive, whether prior use and foreign registration justified immediate protection, and whether the respondent&#039;s registration altered the interim balance. Incomplete pleadings, the absence of the respondent&#039;s defence, and the appellant&#039;s own disclaimers prevented a finding that injunction should follow as of right. On that material, the appellant did not establish entitlement to ex parte ad interim relief, and refusal of interim protection was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>