<?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>2009 (9) TMI 1077 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312671</link>
    <description>Order VII Rule 11 objections based on alleged lack of authority were said to fail where the pleadings raised disputed facts that could not be resolved at the threshold. Territorial jurisdiction was also treated as a matter requiring evidence, given the pleaded Delhi-based distribution, notices, invoices and circulation. On trademark assignment, the note states that title passes on execution of the assignment deed and that non-recordal with the Registrar is evidentiary only, so pending registration does not defeat an assignee&#039;s right to sue for infringement and passing off. Interim injunction was supported on a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 17:35:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 1077 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312671</link>
      <description>Order VII Rule 11 objections based on alleged lack of authority were said to fail where the pleadings raised disputed facts that could not be resolved at the threshold. Territorial jurisdiction was also treated as a matter requiring evidence, given the pleaded Delhi-based distribution, notices, invoices and circulation. On trademark assignment, the note states that title passes on execution of the assignment deed and that non-recordal with the Registrar is evidentiary only, so pending registration does not defeat an assignee&#039;s right to sue for infringement and passing off. Interim injunction was supported on a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>