Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: intellectual property appellate board ipab Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.100 seconds)

Apr 26 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. the Registrar of Trade ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Apr-26-2013

..... to the linkage between the two companies. mr.prabhu shankar in the civil suit before the city civil court has stated that haldiram bhujiawala is a partnership firm. therefore, the invoices cannot be said to relate to the use of the registered joint proprietors. during the course of the arguments, the ..... user prior in point of time than the impugned user. (k)narayanappa v. krishtappa [(1966) 3 scr 400] ?? right of a partner in a partnership continues till the date of dissolution. on dissolution, whatever right the partner will have will be as on the date of dissolution and not afterwards. (l ..... bhujiawala/ haldiram bhujiawala ?? hrd logo in v-shape device. 8. in november, 1974, the partnership firm between mr.ganga bishan, mr.moolchand, mr.shiv kishan and mrs.kamala devi was dissolved. on dissolution, mr.moolchand acquired the exclusive right to use the ..... in kolkata. 7. the trademark haldiram bhujiawala as well as the ??v shape hrb logo was continuously used by mr.ganga bishan and then by the partnership firm haldiram bhujiawala also trading as m/s.chandmal ganga bishan since 1941. therefore, the firm is the prior adopter and user of the trademark haldiram ..... an instrument of fraud. (g)a.v.papayya sastry v. govt. of a.p.[(2007) 4 scc 221] ?? fraud - vitiates all judicial acts whether in rem or in personam. (h)indian bank v. m/s.satyam fibres (india) pvt. ltd. [air 1996 sc 2592] ?? the courts have inherent powers to set aside any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2013 (TRI)

M/S Ambika Exports |(P) Ltd. Vs. M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jan-04-2013

..... of his earlier prior user right in the previous business, he carried out being a partner under the partnership act ?? defendant was only entitled to his share of profits from time to time and after the dissolution of the partnership or his retirement from the partnership of the value of his share (para 20 and 26). ( c) ??harsh vardhan rastogi vs champion ..... of interim injunction and balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff ( para 17 and 20) partnership act, 1932 section 46 ?? right of retired partner ?? share of profit ?? it becomes clear that the assets/properties belonging to the partnership vests in the firm as the section uses the expression ?? property of the firm ? and not in the ..... been made over to and taken over by the continuing partners. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . 9.the retiring shall not be entitled to any sort of goodwill of the partnership firm, name and business ? (emphasis supplied) shri rakesh, therefore relinquished all his claims, if any, with respect to the trademarks/labels ambika, ambika label, anamika label etc. and thereafter he ..... : ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3.in consideration of his capital share as on 31.03.1987, the retiring partner has relinquished all his rights, titles and interest in the partnership firm in favour of the continuing partners. the consideration of capital share shall be paid by the continuing partners in due course of time. 4. that all assets and liabilities .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 2013 (TRI)

Gajendra Kalyanbhai Sheth Vs. Dipakbhai Natwarlal Contractor and Anoth ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Oct-25-2013

..... of the defendant that in the year 1979 the defendant had partnered with the plaintiff and were using the mark ??metro ? and subsequently one more partnership firm was established, wherein wife of the present plaintiff became a partner and wife of other partner, which was newly established, became partner of the ..... the termination of the arrangement, so as to enable him to rectify the register in respect of the registered trade mark under section 57 of the act. ? 15. the respondent had applied for exclusive right for the trade mark metro previously jointly used by both parties. that is clearly a ..... with jointly owned trade mark is reproduced below: ??section 24. jointly owned trade marks:(1) save as provided in sub-section (2), nothing in this act shall authorise the registration of two or more persons, who use a trade mark independently, or propose so as to use it, as joint proprietors thereof ..... partners as aforesaid were concurrently using (emphasis supplied) the mark ??metro ? even before the plaintiff got the said mark registered under the trade marks act. by suppressing such facts, the plaintiff has given an impression in the pleadings i.e., in the plaint as if the defendant is unknown to him ..... the register amounting to fraud. (v) the various legal grounds on which the removal of the impugned trade marks under section 57 of the trade marks act alleged are:- (a) false averments of ownership of the mark under section 18(1) before the registrar. (b) the impugned mark is remaining on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Nirmal Industrial Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Nirma Chemical Works ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Sep-13-2013

..... the registrar by giving a one sided picture of the findings. regarding other technical objections raised by the respondent, the applicant state that the partnership deed is a legal document and it is just a copy and not an extract from registrar of firms that requires to be notarized. ..... trade mark in relation to the goods for which it is registered mentioned in section 28(1) subsumes the factual use of the mark in the indian market. that is not the case here. hence, our irresistible conclusion is that the impugned mark should go. a convincing case under section 47 ..... ??person aggrieved, the applicants are adversely affected by the registrar decision refusing his application for registration of the trade mark ??nirmal. the trade marks act provides an attractive alternative to seek removal of a competitors mark from the register without any time limit if substantial grounds are made out. the ..... and the impugned trade mark nirma is well known in the market. the respondents have registered nirma in all 42 classes under the trade marks act. the impugned mark was adopted in 1969 from the promoters daughters name nirupama. the respondent are mainly engaged in the manufacture of toilet soap, ..... respondent is not entitled for the benefit of section 32. as an alternative plea, the impugned registration also offends section 11(3) of the act. 2. the case of the respondent is briefly indicated below: the respondents are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing various industrial and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Pawan Kumar Sushil Kumar Agro(P) Ltd. Vs. M/S Shriniwas Jhawar an ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jan-04-2013

..... singh vs shri gurbax singh ? -- manu/de/0615/2001 - -air 2001 delhi 507 ??the plaintiff and the defendant were real brothers carrying on business under terms contained in the partnership deed ?? the deed was dissolved and the defendant relinquished and surrendered his rights, interests in the business ?? he started using ??gp t. m. for pipes, oil seals, water ..... . subsequently, the matter was compromised between the parties. 7. the respondent state that the trade mark prt has been used openly, extensively, continuously and uninterruptedly in the indian market since 2000. it was only in 2010 that an objection was raised by the agent of the applicant in guwahati regarding similarity of bags of both the parties and ..... ? - air 1979 cal -133 ??intellectual property rights ?? grant of trade mark ?? application for grant of trade mark rejected ?? hence, present appeal under the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 (the act) ?? held - it was to be noted that appellant had started the use of mark just one month prior to the date of application ?? therefore, deputy registrar held the appellant ..... deed ?? the interim injunction was made absolute. ? 6. s. mehar singh vs m.l. gupta and co.- ( cma ?? 143 of 1980) - delhi hc cal member ??trade marks act ?? section 12 ?? registration of ??prohibition ??identical and deceptively similar trademarks ??sewing machine parts ??applicant/appellant applied for registration of trademark ??mli ? objections raised by opponent who claimed they are proprietors .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 2013 (TRI)

Kishore JaIn Vs. Shri Ruplal, Trading as M/S Ambica Pharmacy

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Oct-25-2013

..... the removal of two registered trade marks under no.336774 b (surmi tone) and no.510489 (surmi) of the respondent on the following grounds.: the applicant is a partnership firm consisting of shri kanwal kishore jain and others and are in the business of manufacturing and marketing ayurvedic medicinal preparations including surma, surmi, kajal and eye drops since 1937 ..... which are briefly that the respondent/ registered proprietor had preferred a false and vexatious complaint under section 418, 419, 420, 482, 486 ?? 489 read with section 34 of ipc against ex-partners of the applicant firm as a bullying tactic. the complaint was numbered as 6/1 of 8th february, 1988 in the court of judicial magistrate, ludhiana. the ..... the applicants started receiving illegal notices from the respondent for using the generic word surma/surmi. therefore, the applicant was compelled to file a suit under the trade marks act, 1999 on groundless and unjustifiable threat against the applicant. that suit is still pending adjudication. subsequently, the respondents registered proprietor filed a fir against the applicant under sections 101 ..... ,102, 103 and 104 of the trade marks act at the police station, division no.3-ludhiana. in response thereto, the applicant filed a petition under section 482 of criminal procedure code for quashing the fir dated 1.12.2004. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2013 (TRI)

M/S Thalappakattu Biriyani and Fast Food Vs. M/S Thalappakatti Ananda ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Apr-05-2013

..... naidu hotel. nagaswamy died in 1978. the business was carried on by his son n. dhanapalan as thalappakatti ananda vilas biriyani hotel. according to the respondent, it thereafter became a partnership firm with n.dhanapalan and his son d. nagasamy as partners. they had acquired a huge reputation because of the quality of the biriyani. articles were published in various journals ..... as ??prime reality limited ? and that the limited company is not a firm and the tender could not be treated as a valid tender. this arose under the income tax act. the other decision relied on is ??ram autar lal jain vs the minister of transport and ors. ? -1974 ?? 1 (scc)305 where it was held that under the motor vehicles ..... act in an application for such carriage permit to a route, if the applicant dies pending application, the areas and legal representatives cannot be substituted, if the deceased applicant did not ..... thalappakatti naidu ananda vilas biriyani stall which is now called thalappakatti naidu ananda vilas biriyani hotel. after 1978 this business was carried on as a partnership. it is stated that this business was changed into a partnership in april, 2002 by inducting n dhanapalans son d. nagasamy naidu. paragraph 5 speaks of the promotion of the company in the name and style .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //