<?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 (7) TMI 1055 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197792</link>
    <description>Use of RED HAT as a trade mark and as part of a corporate name may infringe registered trade mark rights where used by a non-proprietor in trade, including for allied services. A reputed mark may receive protection against dissimilar goods, and business-name use may independently attract infringement provisions. Passing off may arise where adoption is likely to deceive consumers and damage established goodwill, including transborder reputation. A cap device used with the same mark may be assessed as part of the overall deceptive impression. Delay does not preclude interim restraint for dishonest, continuing infringement, particularly where honest prior use and acquiescence are not substantiated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1055 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197792</link>
      <description>Use of RED HAT as a trade mark and as part of a corporate name may infringe registered trade mark rights where used by a non-proprietor in trade, including for allied services. A reputed mark may receive protection against dissimilar goods, and business-name use may independently attract infringement provisions. Passing off may arise where adoption is likely to deceive consumers and damage established goodwill, including transborder reputation. A cap device used with the same mark may be assessed as part of the overall deceptive impression. Delay does not preclude interim restraint for dishonest, continuing infringement, particularly where honest prior use and acquiescence are not substantiated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>