The Delhi High Court noted that the appropriation of and exclusivity claimed vis-Ã -vis a get-up and particularly a colour combination stands on a different footing from a trade mark or a trade name because colours and colour combinations are not inherently distinctive. It should, therefore, not be easy for a person to claim exclusivity over a colour combination particularly when the same has been in use only for a short while. It is only when it is established, may be even prima facie, that the colour combination has become distinctive of the product of a person that an order may be made in his favour. The instant is not such a case. When the first element of passing off is not established, there is no need to examine the other elements of misrepresentation and likelihood of damage.
As such, the plaintiff was not entitled to an interim injunction and, therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
10-Mar-2017 read more
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that in the instant case, no exempt income was shown by the assessee in its return, so, there was no justification for making disallowance of any kind. Thus, the first ground of appeal was allowed. Further, referring to a case of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal stated that question formulated by the department did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Therefore, the second ground of appeal was in favour of the assessee. Furthermore, while deciding the Ground No.1 the Tribunal has held that no addition should have been made u/s.14A for the year under consideration. Following the same, the Tribunal held that addition confirmed by the First Appellate Authority for computing the book profit u/s.115JB has to be deleted. Third Ground of appeal was allowed. Remaining contentions of the assessee were rejected as well as accepted.
As such, the assesseeâ€™s appeal was partly allowed and the AOâ€™s appeal was dismissed.
15-Feb-2017 read more