<?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>2011 (12) TMI 760 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300318</link>
    <description>The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, a Swiss company and its Indian subsidiary, in a case involving infringement of copyright, passing off, unfair competition, and infringement of a registered trademark. The defendant&#039;s packaging was deemed to substantially reproduce the plaintiffs&#039; copyrighted Red Mug Device associated with NESCAFE. The court granted a decree for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant from using the infringing trademark or any similar mark, and from infringing the plaintiffs&#039; copyright. No damages or delivery of infringing materials were awarded, and no costs were ordered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 18:42:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=668116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 760 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300318</link>
      <description>The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, a Swiss company and its Indian subsidiary, in a case involving infringement of copyright, passing off, unfair competition, and infringement of a registered trademark. The defendant&#039;s packaging was deemed to substantially reproduce the plaintiffs&#039; copyrighted Red Mug Device associated with NESCAFE. The court granted a decree for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant from using the infringing trademark or any similar mark, and from infringing the plaintiffs&#039; copyright. No damages or delivery of infringing materials were awarded, and no costs were ordered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>