<?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>1981 (9) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200222</link>
    <description>A trade name is not protected merely because others use similar expressions; it must directly and plainly describe the goods to be treated as descriptive or common to the trade. On the facts, &quot;Kala Niketan&quot; was held not descriptive of sarees and not shown to be generic. Long, continuous use, publicity and sales established distinctiveness and goodwill, giving the trader a protectable business reputation. An identical adoption likely to cause deception and confusion supports passing off relief even without proof of actual damage. Permanent injunction was therefore granted, while destruction of materials and rendition of accounts were refused for want of supporting evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 17:43:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (9) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200222</link>
      <description>A trade name is not protected merely because others use similar expressions; it must directly and plainly describe the goods to be treated as descriptive or common to the trade. On the facts, &quot;Kala Niketan&quot; was held not descriptive of sarees and not shown to be generic. Long, continuous use, publicity and sales established distinctiveness and goodwill, giving the trader a protectable business reputation. An identical adoption likely to cause deception and confusion supports passing off relief even without proof of actual damage. Permanent injunction was therefore granted, while destruction of materials and rendition of accounts were refused for want of supporting evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>