<?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>1999 (12) TMI 889 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458902</link>
    <description>A prima facie case for interim injunction was not established in a dispute over pharmaceutical carton and strip get-up. The Court assessed passing off on the pleaded cartons and strips, the alleged distinctive colour scheme and layout, and the parties&#039; materials on prior use. It held that the plaintiffs could not expand the pleaded case in rejoinder to rely on an unpleaded triangular device, and that particulars of misrepresentation were not properly pleaded. As the defendants showed prima facie earlier adoption of the packaging, the foundation for passing off failed. The copyright infringement claim also failed at the prima facie stage for the same reasons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 13:12:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 889 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458902</link>
      <description>A prima facie case for interim injunction was not established in a dispute over pharmaceutical carton and strip get-up. The Court assessed passing off on the pleaded cartons and strips, the alleged distinctive colour scheme and layout, and the parties&#039; materials on prior use. It held that the plaintiffs could not expand the pleaded case in rejoinder to rely on an unpleaded triangular device, and that particulars of misrepresentation were not properly pleaded. As the defendants showed prima facie earlier adoption of the packaging, the foundation for passing off failed. The copyright infringement claim also failed at the prima facie stage for the same reasons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>