<?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>2003 (4) TMI 613 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458762</link>
    <description>A Court Receiver appointed over the assets of a dissolved partnership may enforce subsisting registered trade marks because the receiver stands in the shoes of the proprietor for protecting and suing on property in his charge. Passing off may also continue after cessation of trading where the dissolved firm&#039;s goodwill survives until winding up is complete and remains vulnerable to misrepresentation. Deceptive similarity is assessed on the overall impression, including word marks, pronunciation, devices, get-up, colour scheme, shape and appearance of containers; on those features, interlocutory protection was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:25:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 613 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458762</link>
      <description>A Court Receiver appointed over the assets of a dissolved partnership may enforce subsisting registered trade marks because the receiver stands in the shoes of the proprietor for protecting and suing on property in his charge. Passing off may also continue after cessation of trading where the dissolved firm&#039;s goodwill survives until winding up is complete and remains vulnerable to misrepresentation. Deceptive similarity is assessed on the overall impression, including word marks, pronunciation, devices, get-up, colour scheme, shape and appearance of containers; on those features, interlocutory protection was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>