https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196715 A prior user of the distinctive mark Hidesign was held entitled to interim protection against a former dealer's continued use of HI-DESIGN Creations and the same mark on leather goods, because the mark was unique, the plaintiff's use was prior, and the added word "Creations" did not remove source confusion. Defences of delay, acquiescence, common-to-trade use, and alleged suppression failed, as the evidence did not show honest concurrent user or an independent reputation built with the plaintiff's consent. The court also found sufficient compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, so the ad interim injunction was maintained. en-us Tue, 08 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:56:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196715 A prior user of the distinctive mark Hidesign was held entitled to interim protection against a former dealer's continued use of HI-DESIGN Creations and the same mark on leather goods, because the mark was unique, the plaintiff's use was prior, and the added word "Creations" did not remove source confusion. Defences of delay, acquiescence, common-to-trade use, and alleged suppression failed, as the evidence did not show honest concurrent user or an independent reputation built with the plaintiff's consent. The court also found sufficient compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, so the ad interim injunction was maintained. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196715