<?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>2002 (1) TMI 1320 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199648</link>
    <description>A descriptive expression made up of words conveying the nature of the business itself was held not to be exclusively appropriable as a trade name or domain name unless the claimant prima facie showed secondary meaning. The court found the material insufficient to show that &quot;kabadibazaar&quot; had become uniquely associated with the plaintiffs, so exclusive protection was not made out. On abusive domain-name registration, bad faith or cybersquatting required identity or misleading similarity, absence of legitimate interest, and dishonest registration and use. Those elements were not established on the record, and the interim injunction was vacated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:53:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 1320 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199648</link>
      <description>A descriptive expression made up of words conveying the nature of the business itself was held not to be exclusively appropriable as a trade name or domain name unless the claimant prima facie showed secondary meaning. The court found the material insufficient to show that &quot;kabadibazaar&quot; had become uniquely associated with the plaintiffs, so exclusive protection was not made out. On abusive domain-name registration, bad faith or cybersquatting required identity or misleading similarity, absence of legitimate interest, and dishonest registration and use. Those elements were not established on the record, and the interim injunction was vacated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>