https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466324 Prior continuous use under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act requires proof of actual, continuous use before the later proprietor's relevant use or registration; mere applications for registration are insufficient. On the facts, the defendants failed to show credible prior sales or use of ROLEX for jewellery, and their defences of limitation, estoppel, acquiescence and waiver also failed because infringement was treated as a continuing wrong. The plaintiff's ROLEX mark was found to have reputation in India, with watches and jewellery treated as overlapping status and fashion goods. Use of the mark and domain name on jewellery was held to take unfair advantage of, and be detrimental to, the mark's distinctive character and repute, supporting infringement and passing off relief. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Mar 2026 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466324 Prior continuous use under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act requires proof of actual, continuous use before the later proprietor's relevant use or registration; mere applications for registration are insufficient. On the facts, the defendants failed to show credible prior sales or use of ROLEX for jewellery, and their defences of limitation, estoppel, acquiescence and waiver also failed because infringement was treated as a continuing wrong. The plaintiff's ROLEX mark was found to have reputation in India, with watches and jewellery treated as overlapping status and fashion goods. Use of the mark and domain name on jewellery was held to take unfair advantage of, and be detrimental to, the mark's distinctive character and repute, supporting infringement and passing off relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466324