<?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>1984 (1) TMI 346 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275969</link>
    <description>A descriptive or laudatory word cannot be monopolised as an exclusive trade mark merely by registration, especially where the registration is subject to a disclaimer. A passing off claim remains available notwithstanding disclaimer, and prior user can justify interim protection where later use creates a real risk of deception; balance of convenience and irreparable harm then support restraint. Interim relief may still be refused for cartons or product design if the pleadings and visual differences do not show a strong prima facie case. Consolidation may also be declined where it would add confusion and the validity issue is materially separate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:55:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (1) TMI 346 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275969</link>
      <description>A descriptive or laudatory word cannot be monopolised as an exclusive trade mark merely by registration, especially where the registration is subject to a disclaimer. A passing off claim remains available notwithstanding disclaimer, and prior user can justify interim protection where later use creates a real risk of deception; balance of convenience and irreparable harm then support restraint. Interim relief may still be refused for cartons or product design if the pleadings and visual differences do not show a strong prima facie case. Consolidation may also be declined where it would add confusion and the validity issue is materially separate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>