<?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>1998 (3) TMI 696 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199075</link>
    <description>A suit for temporary injunction and rendition of accounts may be valued for jurisdiction on the plaintiff&#039;s stated valuation where the claim concerns unsettled accounts, and a nominal valuation is not required. In a composite intellectual property suit, prima facie territorial jurisdiction can be founded on the plaint pleadings, including alleged sales and threatened infringing activity within the forum, together with the copyright jurisdiction provision. The overlap between copyright and trade mark reliefs did not defeat jurisdiction where the court otherwise had jurisdiction over the copyright aspect and the pleadings showed forum-based activity. The jurisdictional objections were rejected and the matter was directed to be considered on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:30:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 696 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199075</link>
      <description>A suit for temporary injunction and rendition of accounts may be valued for jurisdiction on the plaintiff&#039;s stated valuation where the claim concerns unsettled accounts, and a nominal valuation is not required. In a composite intellectual property suit, prima facie territorial jurisdiction can be founded on the plaint pleadings, including alleged sales and threatened infringing activity within the forum, together with the copyright jurisdiction provision. The overlap between copyright and trade mark reliefs did not defeat jurisdiction where the court otherwise had jurisdiction over the copyright aspect and the pleadings showed forum-based activity. The jurisdictional objections were rejected and the matter was directed to be considered on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>