Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Court: chennai Page 1 of about 14,563 results (0.072 seconds)

Sep 14 2006 (HC)

Nalli Sambasivam and Smt. Nalli Duraiswamy Saroja Vs. the Deputy Regis ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : LC2007(1)210; 2007(34)PTC553(Mad)

..... , learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.4. it is not in dispute that the advertisement regarding the application for registration of the trade mark in question, appeared in the trade marks journal dated 16-7-1992 and it is also not in dispute that the notices of opposition were received by the registry on 23-11 ..... beyond the period of four months prescribed under section 21(1) of the act, is not proper. therefore, the order of the assistant registrar of trade marks, dated 30-6-1993 and that of the learned judge in t.m.a. nos. 7 and 8 of 1993 are set aside and the respondent ..... by the learned senior counsel, the issue is already covered by the judgment of the division bench of travancore-cochin in pavunny ouseph v. registrar of trade marks air 1952 tc 77 and we respectfully agree with the ratio laid down therein. if the words 'date of the advertisement' are given any other meaning ..... fact received by various subscribers only on 23/24-7-1992, the appellants filed 4 supporting affidavits sworn to by employees of 4 leading firms of trade mark attorneys at delhi, along with their interlocutory applications. three of them confirmed having received the journal on 24-7-1992 and one of them confirmed ..... -1992. but according to the appellants, the trade mark journal dated 16-7-1992 was received in the office of their attorney at delhi on 24-7-1992 and that therefore the notice of opposition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2009 (HC)

Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Intellectual Property App ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2009Mad196

..... of the appellate board in rejecting the appeal against the refusal to review that order. no case is made out to review the order passed by the deputy registrar of trade marks, chennai, and therefore, there was no error in rejecting the appeal. in the circumstances, we hereby dismiss this writ petition, however, without any order as to costs. consequently, ..... the respondent - 3 being registered (which has been subsequently registered in december, 2007) the petitioner had the remedy to apply for rectification of the register under section 57 of the trade marks act. the petitioner had, in fact, made such a request in the proceedings before the delhi high court, and had filed the rectification application in june, 2008. therefore, the ..... filed within the prescribed extended time along with the requisite fee in the form of a cheque, that only the cheque remained unsigned inadvertently, that the deputy registrar of trade marks ought to have received this opposition, that in any case when the review was filed, the same has been dismissed without assigning any reasons whatsoever, that the petitioner/appellant ..... choice'. the petitioner claims that the product under this brand name is in the market since 1988, but the petitioner became the proprietor thereof from 23rd february, 2007. the trade mark registration for the mark 'officer's choice' in class no. 33 in respect of alcoholic beverages namely., whisky has been registered under registration no. 538927b with effect from 26th october, 1990, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2007 (HC)

Khoday Distilleries Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Companie ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : LC2007(3)409; 2008(36)PTC315(Mad)

..... same the learned judge has referred to several english decisions like champagne case, sherry case, scotch whisky case and advacaat case and several passages from kerly's law of trade marks and trade names and deduced the following principle viz., the question whether one name is likely to cause confusion with another is a matter upon which the judge must make up ..... for registration of the trademark peter scot; no opposition or objection has been taken from 1968 until 1986 by which time, the appellants has established a reputation for the trade name and trade mark; 'peter scot' had found acceptance from customers not only in india but throughout the world; the figures from the year 1968 up to date would show the extent ..... the operation of section 56 of the act. the rights created under the trips agreement or under the geographical indication act are in addition to the provisions of the trade marks act of trips requires member states to make provisions for protecting geographical indications and make provisions for preventing the acts resulting in unfair competition.15. we have carefully considered ..... rectification and also 20 third party affidavits have been filed as evidence. but the appellant herein did not file any evidence in support of registration.5. the deputy registrar of trade marks, the third respondent herein framed the following five issues;(1) whether the applicants are 'persons aggrieved' under section 56;(2) whether the application for rectification is not maintainable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1965 (HC)

T.G. Balaji Chettiar Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1967Mad148

..... manner known to and recognised by law. in this case it is not claimed that the appellant was the first inventor or the first owner of the trade mark. on his own showing when the trade mark had been invented and owned by one viswanathan and had also been used by the partnership firm, the appellant cannot claim to be the proprietor unless the ..... language means sun. it is interesting to notice that the opposition to registration was as the instance of messrs. lever brothers on the ground that the pictorial representation of the trade mark, prabhat soap, was deceptively similar to that of sunlight, and that the use of the word prahabat, the hindi equivalent of the english word, sunlight, would cause deception and confusion ..... over india through newspapers cinema feature film, advertisement bills in about twelve languages and undoubtedly command the largest sales. it may als be mentioned that in the user of these trade marks and labels consisting of the word or device, sun or sunlight a label bearing blue, red and yellow colour scheme(with clear and distinctive features) has been uniformly used. evidence ..... to law and on merits, after the applications are duly advertised and after hearing oppositions if any to such registration. it is after this remand that the asst registrar of trade marks, madras by his order dated 16-9-1960 rejected the two aforesaid applications of the applicant.(4) messrs. hindustan lever limited, the respondent herein contested the applications for registration in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2002 (HC)

Ramachander Laxminarayan Karva, Registered Partnership Firm, Rep. by I ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2003)1MLJ246

..... . 16. on the basis of the above arguments, the issues arise for consideration in these appeals are:(1)whether the respondents are using the trade marks, offending the registered trade marks of the appellant?(2)whether the registration of the trade mark during the pendency of the appeal can be taken into consideration to mould the relief?(3)to what other relief the parties are entitled ..... not the basis to decide the question of infringement as the same is not the rule of comparison to find out the deceptive resemblance of the offending trade mark. 19. if we compare the trade mark of the appellant with that of the respondents, following the principles of rule of comparison, as laid down by the apex court referred to above, we have no ..... the learned judge had adopted the rule of comparison to find out the degree of dissimilarity and came to the conclusion that there are differences between the trade mark of the appellant and the offending trade mark of the respondents and as such those dissimilarities would enable the purchaser of the commodity to identity the goods of the appellant as well as the respondents ..... the appellant filed c.m.p.11819, 11821 and 11924 of 1997 for amendment of the plaint seeking the appropriate relief of injunction restraining the respondents from using the offending trade marks, apart from the original relief of passing of.5. the appellant is the registered partnership firm, having its factory at hyderabad and is engaged in manufacturing of ammonium chloride .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1958 (HC)

Sri Chamundeeswari Weaving and Trading Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Mysore S ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1959Mad251; (1959)1MLJ217

..... is situate. in this particular case, there is no suit or other proceeding pending in any court regarding the first respondent's trade mark.13. an order that the trade mark be struck off the register would affect the first respondent and his business. the first respondent's head office is at bombay ..... its mill is in the mysore state. the subject-matter of the petition, therefore, relates to the states of bombay and mysore. if the trade marks were struck off the register, it would directly affect the business transacted in the states of bombay and mysore. the high court at bombay has ..... for consideration is whether the subject-matter of the petition, namely, the removal of the trademark of the first respondent from the register of trade marks, relates to the state of madras. the petitioner contends that any high court in india would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition by any citizen ..... with respect, the correctness of that view. the decision would become directly applicable if the registrar refused the petitioner's application for registration of the trade mark, and the petitioner preferred an appeal to the high court of this state instead of to the high court at bombay.12. the only question ..... that upto a date one month before the date of this petition a continuous period of five years or longer had elapsed during which the trade mark was registered and during which there was no bona fide use thereof in relation to those goods by the first respondent.6. the first respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2011 (HC)

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

..... be stayed till the disposal of the opposition filed by the plaintiff and that when the defendant has not filed any rectification application after challenging the registration of the plaintiffs trade mark as invalid before this court, the statutory direction as enshrined in section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the act has to be complied with.5. contending on the other ..... like proceedings, it is appropriate to stay further proceedings of the case. it is her further contention that as per section 124(1) (a) of the trade marks act, 1999, registration of the plaintiff's trade mark has been challenged as invalid in the written statement specifically, that even the defendant in the written statement has pleaded that in view of the opposition proceedings ..... the subject matter in issue in the proceedings before the learned registrar of trade marks and in the present suit before this court are substantially one and the same. hence, the suit has to be stayed till the disposal of the opposition proceedings before the ..... no.1003963 in class 5 claiming user since 31.12.1998. against the said application, the applicant has filed necessary opposition proceedings under amd no.192440 before the registrar of trade marks, ahmedabad and the said opposition is still pending. 2.(b) till a decision is pronounced by the concerned authority in the opposition proceedings, the present suit should be stayed. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2008 (HC)

Konar Publications Vs. Madras Palaniappa Bros. and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : LC2008(2)332; (2008)3MLJ10

..... court in gujarat bottling co. ltd. (supra), it will be evident:i) that a registered user can take proceeding in his known name to prevent infringement of trade mark;ii) the use of trade mark can also be permitted dehors the provisions of the act by grant of licence by registered proprietor to the proposed user; andiii) such licence is governed by common ..... court further held as follows:13. apart from the said provisions relating to registered users, it is permissible for the registered proprietor of a trade mark to permit a person to use his registered trade mark. such licensing of trade mark is governed by common law and is permissible provided (i) the licensing does not result in causing confusion or deception among the public; (ii ..... & co., an injunction order issued at the instance of the plaintiff, m/s. palaniappa brothers against defendant firm/appellant herein.c) there is no provision of permissive user under the trade marks act. therefore, the defendant/respondent, m/s. madras karthikeyan & co., and m/s. madras palaniappa brothers, established in the year 1991 and 1992 respectively, cannot be held to ..... 1997 before the original side of this court, inter alia for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants of respective suits - respondents herein, from infringing the appellant's registered trade mark 'konar'. mr. s.m. palaniappa chettiar and m/s. palaniappa brothers, jointly instituted another suit before the original side of this court in c.s. no. 311/97, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2004 (HC)

Jolen Inc., Rep. by Its Constituted Attorney, Mr. A. Arulselvan Vs. Mr ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2004)3MLJ176; 2005(30)PTC385(Mad)

..... counsel for the respondents is that the respondents have been using the trademark jolen from 1987. he also referred to the affidavit filed by the respondents before the registrar of trade marks, new delhi in opposition no.del-9820. he submitted that the appellant filed an application for registration of the trademark jolen and when the respondents' application for registration was ..... to use the trademark. it is stated that on 16.3.1991, the application no.434499 of the first respondent for registration of trademark jolen was advertised in the trade marks journal and none including the appellant filed any objection and registration certificate was issued to the first respondent on 15.11.1991. it is stated that the first respondent filed ..... business under the name and style, hindustan rimmer (second respondent) and he has been adopting the trademark jolen from the year 1985. a request was made to the registrar of trade marks to find out whether the said trademark conflicted with any registered trademark or pending applications on record. since there was no conflicting trademark on record, the first respondent adopted the ..... of hair bleach, skin cream and lotions, astringents, toilet waters, colognes, perfumes, eye make-up, face power, rouge, nail polish. it is stated that the application was advertised in trade marks journal no.1109 dated 16.8.1995 and the application was opposed by the respondents and the application was ultimately dismissed by order dated 11.3.1999 by the assistant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 2008 (HC)

Wipro Limited, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate Rep. by Its Legal Manager ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2008Mad165; 2008(3)CTC724; LC2008(2)466; (2008)3MLJ1; 2008(37)PTC269(Mad)

..... appeals which fell for consideration before us.3. c.s. no. 874 of 2007 is filed by the plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing their registered trade mark 'chandrika' and from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale, soaps or toilet preparation with prefix or suffix with the expression 'chandrika'. in c.s. no. 996 of 2007, the ..... the plaintiffs, after the second plaintiff got the deed of assignment, the second plaintiff has executed license user agreement in favour of the first plaintiff granting license to use the trade mark 'chandrika' and its copyright.5. it is the case of the plaintiffs that they have spent huge amount in promoting their business and the annual sales figure of the plaintiff ..... cause of action having arisen in chennai, the court cannot entertain the suits. it was contended that as per section 62 of the copyright act and section 134 of the trade mark act, the expression 'actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business' has to be meaningfully interpreted and would not cover a branch office carrying on business. it was further ..... need not be obtained.9. on the other hand, mr. madan babu, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the second plaintiff, who is the registered proprietor of the trade mark in question, is based at bangalore and also the first plaintiff has its corporate office at bangalore, which is outside the jurisdiction of this court. according to him, the fact .....

Tag this Judgment!


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