Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pepsu court of wards act 2008 bk Sorted by: old Court: intellectual property appellate board ipab Page 1 of about 4 results (0.037 seconds)

Mar 19 2008 (TRI)

Polo/Lauren Company, L.P. Vs. Royal Classic Mills Private Limited and ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... of the advertisement. accordingly, the order of the joint registrar of trade marks granting registration of the mark in favour of the latter was set aside by the bombay high court and while doing so it held as under :- ?? ? ..not only that the petitioner corporations products are widely advertised in american magazines of common interest, which have a fairly large ..... enough to cause confusion when consumer of average intelligence with imperfect memory wants to buy a particular product. in cadila health care ltd. v. cadila pharmaceuticals ltd. (supra), the apex court held that in an action for passing off on the basis of unregistered trade mark generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity, factors to be considered are- (a) the ..... is appellants licensee how the appellant can allow its licensee to manufacture polo goods for other entities ? 15. shri chandran asserted that by applying the factors propounded by the apex court in cadila health care ltd. vs. cadila pharmaceuticals ltd., air 2001 sc 1952 that generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity, the nature of marks, the degree of resembleness ..... international character which medicine and the allied sciences have assumed and increasingly assumed over the last two decades, it seems to me that the court must be particularly careful to see that in exercising its discretion under the act the public interest is not in any way imperiled. for my part i am not satisfied that, in allowing to be used by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 2008 (TRI)

Three-n-products Private Limited Vs. Amalco Herbal Products

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... is whether the applicant is the ??person aggrieved to file the present rectification application. the expression ??aggrieved person has received liberal construction from the courts and includes rivals in the same trade who are aggrieved by the entry of rivals mark in the register of trade marks or persons who ..... powder, etc. and the onus of proving non-use is on the applicant. 7. the rectification application came up before us for hearing on 25.6.2008, when shri k.c. kailasam, advocate appeared on behalf of the applicant and shri e.d. zacharias, advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent. 8 ..... . the allegation that the trade mark ayurgreen has been granted in contravention of the provisions of sections 9, 11 and 18(1) of the act is false and incorrect. learned counsel further submitted that the respondent is the first adopter, originator, true owner and lawful proprietor of the trade ..... registration and the registration granted to the respondent is not only in contravention of section 11 but also sections 9 and 18(1) of the act as well. (c) that the entry of impugned trade mark on the register was made without sufficient cause and wrongly remaining on the register ..... and extensive use, coupled with large scale advertisement and publicity thereof, the said trade mark has become well known mark as defined under the act and is exclusively associated with the said goods of the applicants manufacture/merchandise. 4. it is also stated that he applicants activities include manufacture and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Hindustan Unilever Limited and Another Vs. M/S. Girnar Exports, T ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... evidence of user by the applicant after the date of application was of no use. the madras high court further stated that for the purpose of registration the rights of the party must be determined as on the date of the application. (viii) (2008) 17 scc 491 ?? bachhaj nahar, appellant vs. nilima mandal and another, respondents: this relates to the question whether ..... this word with the product and direct reference was necessary to construe an expression ??adapted to distinguish ? and ??capable of distinguishing ? . in regard to the legislative history of the act, the english act of 1938, it says that there would be no bar to use of common words of the english language if they qualify under any of the clauses (a) to ..... (60) e.l.t. 88 (guj.) ?? brooke bond india ltd. vs. union of india: this was relied on because there was an observation which arose under the central excise tariff act of 1985 that tea is blended and sold in the market under different names such as red label, red special, tajmahal etc. (xvii) 1976 rpc 511 ?? smith, kline and french ..... section 13) preserves intact any right which the proprietor may otherwise under any other law have in relation to the mark or any part thereof. ? (xxii) central excise and salt act, 1944 tariff item 3(2) was also produced to show that while there was reference to black tea and green tea there was no tea called ??red tea. in the .....

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

..... the respondent admitting the proprietary right of the applicant in its distinctive packagings and undertook not to reproduce any package identical or deceptively similar to the applicant. however, the honble court directed the applicant and respondent to agitate its respective trade marks rights. (c) it is the case of the applicant that on a plain visual examination of the two competing ..... . and others ? - 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 ..... shop is located in naya bazaar , delhi and the applicants have never objected to the use and registration to the respondent mark all these years. howver, the honble delhi high court had restrained the respondent from manufacturing/selling, or offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly and deal in rice and other cognate goods bearing their trade mark. subsequently, the matter ..... cancellation (12.05.2011). in the three years preceding the same, the applicants had a turnover of over rs. 26 crores in (2007-08); over rs. 33.5. crores in (2008-09) and over rs. 37.08 crores (2009-10). (l) by virtue of continuous use over the last fifteen years, the applicants trade mark krt has acquired reputation and valuable .....

Tag this Judgment!


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