<?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>2005 (2) TMI 842 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180676</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the respondent&#039;s valid registration under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for the brand name in question, covering the entire disputed period. The appellant was granted the option to challenge the registration&#039;s validity in the future.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:16:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 842 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180676</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the respondent&#039;s valid registration under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for the brand name in question, covering the entire disputed period. The appellant was granted the option to challenge the registration&#039;s validity in the future.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>