<?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>2012 (2) TMI 631 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196821</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, and the direction for restoration and renewal of the trademark &quot;MBD&quot; was upheld, subject to verification by the Registrar. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of issuing Notice in Form O-3 before removing a trademark, ruling that removal without such notice is improper and illegal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:37:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 631 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196821</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, and the direction for restoration and renewal of the trademark &quot;MBD&quot; was upheld, subject to verification by the Registrar. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of issuing Notice in Form O-3 before removing a trademark, ruling that removal without such notice is improper and illegal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>