https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466323 Use of BLOOMBERG as part of a corporate name could attract infringement under Section 29(4) even in relation to dissimilar goods or services, because "mark" includes a name and the provision protects against dilution where the mark has reputation in India, the adoption is without due cause, and detriment or unfair advantage is shown. The Court also treated the plaintiff's trans-border and Indian reputation, the defendants' use of the identical mark as the dominant corporate prefix, and the likelihood of consumer confusion as sufficient for passing off. A disclaimer was found inadequate, and interim restraint was warranted pending trial. en-us Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:51:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466323 Use of BLOOMBERG as part of a corporate name could attract infringement under Section 29(4) even in relation to dissimilar goods or services, because "mark" includes a name and the provision protects against dilution where the mark has reputation in India, the adoption is without due cause, and detriment or unfair advantage is shown. The Court also treated the plaintiff's trans-border and Indian reputation, the defendants' use of the identical mark as the dominant corporate prefix, and the likelihood of consumer confusion as sufficient for passing off. A disclaimer was found inadequate, and interim restraint was warranted pending trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466323