https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196565 Use of the expression "Yo" in flavour phrases was held not to constitute trade mark use because it functioned as part of product description rather than as an independent badge of origin, so Section 29(1) was not engaged. Section 29(4) also did not apply because the asserted reputation of the earlier mark was not established on the available material and the use was plausibly linked to flavour presentation; Section 29(5) was inapplicable since the mark was not used as a trade name or part of a business name. The Section 30(2)(a) descriptive-use defence was at least arguable, and interim injunction principles required proper weighing of competing cases, balance of convenience and irreparable harm. The ad interim restraint was therefore set aside. en-us Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196565 Use of the expression "Yo" in flavour phrases was held not to constitute trade mark use because it functioned as part of product description rather than as an independent badge of origin, so Section 29(1) was not engaged. Section 29(4) also did not apply because the asserted reputation of the earlier mark was not established on the available material and the use was plausibly linked to flavour presentation; Section 29(5) was inapplicable since the mark was not used as a trade name or part of a business name. The Section 30(2)(a) descriptive-use defence was at least arguable, and interim injunction principles required proper weighing of competing cases, balance of convenience and irreparable harm. The ad interim restraint was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196565