<?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>2017 (12) TMI 1886 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457764</link>
    <description>For a foreign claimant to maintain passing off in India, actionable goodwill must be proved within the Indian market at the relevant time; global reputation alone is insufficient without reliable evidence of spillover into domestic recognition. The Court applied the territoriality principle and held that prior user, goodwill, misrepresentation and damage must be established on Indian evidence, not merely on worldwide publicity or internet presence. On the facts, the claimant failed to show sufficient reputation or market penetration in India before the respondent&#039;s adoption and long use of the mark, and the unexplained delay in approaching the Court further supported the respondent&#039;s defence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 23:32:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1886 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457764</link>
      <description>For a foreign claimant to maintain passing off in India, actionable goodwill must be proved within the Indian market at the relevant time; global reputation alone is insufficient without reliable evidence of spillover into domestic recognition. The Court applied the territoriality principle and held that prior user, goodwill, misrepresentation and damage must be established on Indian evidence, not merely on worldwide publicity or internet presence. On the facts, the claimant failed to show sufficient reputation or market penetration in India before the respondent&#039;s adoption and long use of the mark, and the unexplained delay in approaching the Court further supported the respondent&#039;s defence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>