https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357730 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable for a proprietary dispute over alleged trademark infringement and passing off, because such issues fall within the statutory domain of the competent forum under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court also found that the petitioner, as merely a member of the third respondent, was not the person aggrieved in relation to the claimed trademark right and therefore lacked locus standi to seek writ relief. The existence of an efficacious statutory remedy was treated as the proper course, and the petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue remedies under the Act. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357730 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable for a proprietary dispute over alleged trademark infringement and passing off, because such issues fall within the statutory domain of the competent forum under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court also found that the petitioner, as merely a member of the third respondent, was not the person aggrieved in relation to the claimed trademark right and therefore lacked locus standi to seek writ relief. The existence of an efficacious statutory remedy was treated as the proper course, and the petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue remedies under the Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357730