<?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>2002 (3) TMI 937 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197694</link>
    <description>A domain name can function like a trade mark and be protected in passing off if it has acquired distinctiveness, secondary meaning, reputation and goodwill through long and recognisable use. Where the defendant adopts a deceptively similar domain name in the same field and the record shows diversion of internet traffic, the use is likely to cause confusion and deception and may indicate deliberate bad faith. A descriptive or generic element may still gain protection through sustained distinct use. On these facts, the plaintiff established a prima facie case and interim restraint was granted against use of the impugned domain name or any deceptively similar mark, including hyperlinking to the defendant&#039;s website, pending the suit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:23:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504197" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 937 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197694</link>
      <description>A domain name can function like a trade mark and be protected in passing off if it has acquired distinctiveness, secondary meaning, reputation and goodwill through long and recognisable use. Where the defendant adopts a deceptively similar domain name in the same field and the record shows diversion of internet traffic, the use is likely to cause confusion and deception and may indicate deliberate bad faith. A descriptive or generic element may still gain protection through sustained distinct use. On these facts, the plaintiff established a prima facie case and interim restraint was granted against use of the impugned domain name or any deceptively similar mark, including hyperlinking to the defendant&#039;s website, pending the suit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>