https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368699 Interlocutory restraint for trade mark infringement could not be sustained merely on the respondent's label registration where both parties held competing registrations in Class 30 for similar dhall products; Section 28(3) was treated as significant, and the disclaimer was read as limited to the device and descriptive expression rather than conferring an exclusive right to the word element. That part of the injunction was set aside. The passing off claim stood on prior user, goodwill and likelihood of deception, and the appellant's changed packaging using "GOLD WINNER" for dhall products prima facie suggested confusion and trading on the respondent's goodwill. Interim protection on passing off was therefore maintained for a limited period. en-us Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:53:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368699 Interlocutory restraint for trade mark infringement could not be sustained merely on the respondent's label registration where both parties held competing registrations in Class 30 for similar dhall products; Section 28(3) was treated as significant, and the disclaimer was read as limited to the device and descriptive expression rather than conferring an exclusive right to the word element. That part of the injunction was set aside. The passing off claim stood on prior user, goodwill and likelihood of deception, and the appellant's changed packaging using "GOLD WINNER" for dhall products prima facie suggested confusion and trading on the respondent's goodwill. Interim protection on passing off was therefore maintained for a limited period. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368699