https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199182 A registered proprietor may restrain use of an identical mark in another trader's corporate name where the adoption is not bona fide and is likely to cause confusion or an association with the proprietor's business. The Court held that the plaintiffs' power of attorney was wide enough to authorise institution of the suit, and no valid revocation was shown, so the objection to filing failed. It further held that use of "Bedrock" by the first defendants prima facie infringed the registered marks and amounted to passing off; the defence of bona fide use of one's own name under Section 34 failed. Pending rectification proceedings, delay, and balance of convenience did not bar interim relief. en-us Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:57:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199182 A registered proprietor may restrain use of an identical mark in another trader's corporate name where the adoption is not bona fide and is likely to cause confusion or an association with the proprietor's business. The Court held that the plaintiffs' power of attorney was wide enough to authorise institution of the suit, and no valid revocation was shown, so the objection to filing failed. It further held that use of "Bedrock" by the first defendants prima facie infringed the registered marks and amounted to passing off; the defence of bona fide use of one's own name under Section 34 failed. Pending rectification proceedings, delay, and balance of convenience did not bar interim relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199182