https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199881 Rival trademark registrations and pending rectification proceedings attracted the statutory stay under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, so the suit was stayed even though some rectification petitions were filed after the suit. The request for interim restraint failed because the plaintiff showed doubtful territorial jurisdiction, lacked urgency, suppressed material facts, and could not demonstrate a strong likelihood of confusion, especially where its business was largely confined to the Canteen Stores Department. Interim injunction was refused and the prior restraint was vacated, subject only to maintenance of accounts. en-us Fri, 30 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:49:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199881 Rival trademark registrations and pending rectification proceedings attracted the statutory stay under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, so the suit was stayed even though some rectification petitions were filed after the suit. The request for interim restraint failed because the plaintiff showed doubtful territorial jurisdiction, lacked urgency, suppressed material facts, and could not demonstrate a strong likelihood of confusion, especially where its business was largely confined to the Canteen Stores Department. Interim injunction was refused and the prior restraint was vacated, subject only to maintenance of accounts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199881