<?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>1997 (5) TMI 440 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199885</link>
    <description>Trade dress and passing off claims require a fact-specific comparison of wrappers as a whole, including colour scheme, lettering, get-up and design; mere phonetic resemblance is insufficient where material visual differences exist, and interim relief was not sustained on that basis. Territorial jurisdiction in a suit founded on registered trade mark infringement and passing off is governed by the special jurisdiction rule under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, read with the general territorial rule; on the plaint averments, Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction over the trade mark causes of action. Where jurisdiction is lacking, balance of convenience does not support continuation of the injunction, and the interim order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:09:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 440 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199885</link>
      <description>Trade dress and passing off claims require a fact-specific comparison of wrappers as a whole, including colour scheme, lettering, get-up and design; mere phonetic resemblance is insufficient where material visual differences exist, and interim relief was not sustained on that basis. Territorial jurisdiction in a suit founded on registered trade mark infringement and passing off is governed by the special jurisdiction rule under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, read with the general territorial rule; on the plaint averments, Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction over the trade mark causes of action. Where jurisdiction is lacking, balance of convenience does not support continuation of the injunction, and the interim order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>