<?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>1999 (9) TMI 980 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199517</link>
    <description>Use of a deceptively similar mark and logo for mixer-grinders was found to infringe the plaintiff&#039;s established trade mark rights and amount to passing off, because the plaintiff proved prior use and ownership through unrebutted documentary and affidavit evidence, while the defendant&#039;s adoption was held calculated to confuse purchasers and trade on the plaintiff&#039;s reputation. The plaintiff&#039;s artistic logo was also treated as an original artistic work under copyright law. Permanent injunction, delivery-up of infringing material, monetary relief in lieu of accounts, and costs were granted against the defendant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 17:22:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 980 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199517</link>
      <description>Use of a deceptively similar mark and logo for mixer-grinders was found to infringe the plaintiff&#039;s established trade mark rights and amount to passing off, because the plaintiff proved prior use and ownership through unrebutted documentary and affidavit evidence, while the defendant&#039;s adoption was held calculated to confuse purchasers and trade on the plaintiff&#039;s reputation. The plaintiff&#039;s artistic logo was also treated as an original artistic work under copyright law. Permanent injunction, delivery-up of infringing material, monetary relief in lieu of accounts, and costs were granted against the defendant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>