https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283224 Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is confined to correcting jurisdictional error, perversity, or grave injustice, and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or correction of mere errors. Applying that standard, the Madras HC noted no patent perversity in the statutory authorities' appreciation of the record. On the trademark objections, the petitioner failed to prove ownership or assignment of the mark, dishonest adoption, reliable Indian circulation of foreign reputation materials, or transborder reputation in India. The materials were insufficient to establish passing off, confusion, or infringement-based restraint, especially where the goods were different. The challenge to the respondents' registrations therefore failed. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:22:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283224 Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is confined to correcting jurisdictional error, perversity, or grave injustice, and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or correction of mere errors. Applying that standard, the Madras HC noted no patent perversity in the statutory authorities' appreciation of the record. On the trademark objections, the petitioner failed to prove ownership or assignment of the mark, dishonest adoption, reliable Indian circulation of foreign reputation materials, or transborder reputation in India. The materials were insufficient to establish passing off, confusion, or infringement-based restraint, especially where the goods were different. The challenge to the respondents' registrations therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283224