<?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>1997 (10) TMI 411 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288078</link>
    <description>A registered trade mark owner seeking interim injunction must still establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Here, prior user by the defendants in India since 1985, their organised business and sales network, and the plaintiffs&#039; weak interim evidence of Indian use weighed against relief. The Court found that foreign magazine advertisements did not sufficiently prove Indian circulation or market use before the defendants&#039; adoption, and that prolonged non-use in India also affected the claim. On the material before it, transborder reputation was not shown strongly enough to displace the defendants&#039; prima facie defence, so interim injunction was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 May 2020 16:44:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 411 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288078</link>
      <description>A registered trade mark owner seeking interim injunction must still establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Here, prior user by the defendants in India since 1985, their organised business and sales network, and the plaintiffs&#039; weak interim evidence of Indian use weighed against relief. The Court found that foreign magazine advertisements did not sufficiently prove Indian circulation or market use before the defendants&#039; adoption, and that prolonged non-use in India also affected the claim. On the material before it, transborder reputation was not shown strongly enough to displace the defendants&#039; prima facie defence, so interim injunction was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>