https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196945 Territorial jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act was treated as available at the interim stage because the plaint stated that the plaintiffs carried on business in Delhi and that averment was not specifically denied; the objection was left open for re-examination at issue-framing and trial as a mixed question of law and fact. In the passing off dispute, the defendants failed to establish continuous prior user, while the marks AQUAFINA and AQUAFINE, together with the packaging and get-up, were found deceptively similar and a slavish copy. Prior user and common law rights were treated as prevailing over mere registration, so interim protection was continued. en-us Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:25:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196945 Territorial jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act was treated as available at the interim stage because the plaint stated that the plaintiffs carried on business in Delhi and that averment was not specifically denied; the objection was left open for re-examination at issue-framing and trial as a mixed question of law and fact. In the passing off dispute, the defendants failed to establish continuous prior user, while the marks AQUAFINA and AQUAFINE, together with the packaging and get-up, were found deceptively similar and a slavish copy. Prior user and common law rights were treated as prevailing over mere registration, so interim protection was continued. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196945