<?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>2001 (3) TMI 1062 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199647</link>
    <description>In a passing off dispute over tea packaging, the composite expression &quot;Super Cup&quot; was found descriptive and laudatory in the context of the tea trade, and the record did not establish acquired secondary meaning. The rival cartons were compared as a whole, including house marks, colour scheme, device, layout and overall get-up, and the defendant&#039;s use of its principal mark and mountain device created sufficient visual distinction. As a result, likelihood of confusion was not shown to justify interlocutory restraint, interim injunction was refused, and the injunction granted by the Single Judge was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:47:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 1062 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199647</link>
      <description>In a passing off dispute over tea packaging, the composite expression &quot;Super Cup&quot; was found descriptive and laudatory in the context of the tea trade, and the record did not establish acquired secondary meaning. The rival cartons were compared as a whole, including house marks, colour scheme, device, layout and overall get-up, and the defendant&#039;s use of its principal mark and mountain device created sufficient visual distinction. As a result, likelihood of confusion was not shown to justify interlocutory restraint, interim injunction was refused, and the injunction granted by the Single Judge was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>