Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom246; (1962)64BOMLR616
..... an application for rectification of the register. they, however, do indicate the circumstances in which the court suo motu would order expungemet of an entry from the register of trade marks namely, where a trade mark, as already stated, was incapable, in its very nature, of registration under the act, or where the registration has been illegal or improper. in no other case would ..... not eventually be found to be such person, e.g. by his conduct, as in this case, in withdrawing his opposition to the application for registration of a trade mark and thereby allowing the trade mark to be registered without any objection from him. reference in this connection may be made to in the matter of actomin products ltd. (1952) 69 r.p.c ..... the said act and then proceeded to observe as follows :'broadly, the case of the appellants is that the trade mark 'cibol' so closely resembles their trade mark 'ciha' and that their trade mark 'ciba' was already on the register on august 24, 1946, and therefore, the trade mark of the respondents, should not have been registered on november 3, 1949. the appellants had also sought to bring ..... . birmingham vinegar brewery co., (1894) ac 8. it is as follows :'wherever it can be shown, as here, that the applicant is in the. same trade as the person who has registered 'the trade mark, and wherever the trade mark if remaining on the register, would or might limit the legal rights of the applicant, so that by reason of the existence of the entry .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2008Bom100; 2008(2)ALLMR405; 2008(2)BomCR739; (2008)110BOMLR409; LC2008(1)275; 2008(36)PTC478(Bom)
..... defendant a valid defence in an action for infringement and passing off. the decided cases furnish other instances. among them is a judgment of the delhi high court where a trade mark of a medicinal preparation (nimulid) is wholly derived from the principal drug used in its manufacture (nimesulide). (panacea biotec ltd. v. recon ltd. : air1997delhi244 . griffon laboratories (p) ..... matters of infringement and passing off involving pharmaceutical products in cadila: at paragraph 32 page 1964public interest would support lesser degree of proof showing confusing similarity in the case of trade mark in respect of medicinal product as against other nonmedicinal product. drugs are poisons, not sweets. confusion between medical products may, therefore, be life threatening, not merely inconvenient. ..... appellate judges based themselves in arriving at the conclusion that there was no reasonable apprehension of confusion or deception was, as we have earlier stated, that there were various trade marks with a prefix or suffix 'gluco'or 'vita'and that made it impossible to say that the common features 'glu' and 'vita' were only associated with the ..... are meant for curing the same ailment but the compositions are different;(iii) there is no phonetic or structural similarity between the two marks. under section 30(2)(a) of the trade mark act, 1999, a registered trade mark is not infringed where the use in relation to goods or services indicates inter alia the kind, quality, intended purpose or other .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom76; (1955)57BOMLR1006; ILR1955Bom976
..... extent of the user by the applicant in that case was extremely material. there was a further fact also that the applicant had used the expression 'regd.' after his trade mark without the trade mark being registered and in doing so he committed an offence and was liable to be prosecuted. he then tried to conceal the fact that he had used the word ..... the matter being again remanded to the registrar and for the registrar to consider whether in view of this principle (sic) should completely disentitle the applicant from registration of his trade mark.in our opinion, therefore, the only question that should have been considered by the learned judge on the appeal preferred before him by the respondent was whether the agreement which ..... view that the registrar had decided mainly on the question of the genuineness of the agreement. according to the learned judge what the registrar should have considered was whether the trade mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion.that was the only circumstance the registrar should have taken into consideration and therefore the learned judge thought that the registrar should reconsider ..... user that he had a right to registration in eight districts, and the registrar expressed his opinion that if the agreement was not held proved, he would have registered the trade mark in respect of the eight districts.against this decision the respondent went in appeal to tendolkar, i. & the appellant filed cross-objections and tendolkar, j. remanded the matter backto .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR439; 2006(3)BomCR252; 2006(4)MhLj396; LC2007(2)185; 2006(33)PTC180(Bom)
..... denied to the plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs have made an incorrect statement in the plaint. but as the purpose of granting temporary injunction in a suit for infringement of trade-mark or trade label is not only to protect the interest of the plaintiffs, but also to protect the interest of the general public, in my opinion, denial of temporary injunction ..... agreement dt.19-4-2002 referred to above are relevant and by reason thereof, the defendants are estopped from disputing the validity or popularity or reputation of the plaintiffs' mark. 6. the trade marks, brand names and the get up in which the beer will be sold, supplied and delivered by mrsbl (defendants) to swbl (plaintiffs) or as per direction of ..... ) reputation, which the plaintiffs have established for the reasons stated above (ii) misrepresentation, which is established by the plaintiffs by reason of the identical essential feature of the plaintiffs' trade mark being used by the defendants and (iii) damage, which is established by the plaintiffs by reason of the confusion created by the defendants. the plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to ..... filed a statement showing their annual sales from 1993-94. the plaintiffs state that they have made efforts to popularise their beer sold under the said trade mark and have issued sale material bearing the trade mark 'haywards 5000'. they have spent substantial sums of moneys on publicity and sales promotional expenses. they have filed a chart showing the expenditure incurred by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR901
..... of such product is common, there is more possibility of deception and confusion and infringer's action, definitely cause damage to the goodwill and the reputation of their trade mark of parties like respondents herein,'(underlining supplied)8. learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that in the decision of sun pharmaceuticals industries limited the division bench of this ..... the relief of an injunction.3. learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the name 'netmicin' used by the defendants for their product is deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiffs. the similarity is both phonetic as well as visual. there is a probability of confusion of the consumers. learned counsel for the plaintiffs refers and ..... started manufacturing, selling and distributing the identical medicinal product 'netilmicin suphate' in ingestible form under the brand name 'netmicin'. on being aware of the defendants' infringement of their trade mark and passing off of their goods (medicinal product) the plaintiffs after issuing a notice dated august 2, 2004 through their solicitors have filed this suit and moved this court ..... sulphate' in injectable form under the brand name 'netromycin'. the plaintiff no, 1 has also registered as a trade mark the word mark 'netromycin' in class 5 of iv schedule to the trade marks rules. the plaintiffs' product is sold under the trade mark 'netromycin' in ampules and is used as an ingestible antibiotic. the plaintiffs have sales of several crores of rupees .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom641
..... during that period.now, it is true that the present opponent was a minor but his father who was the proprietor of the trade mark and whose right to the trade mark had been admitted by the panchnama was alive till 1942 i.e., for about 5 years from the date of the panchnama. that ..... which would establish the fact that the opponent had such knowledge.this contention of mr. laud must, therefore, fail and the order of the trade marks registrar refusing registration in these seven districts as well as the rest of india will stand.11. the next question that has been urged on ..... therefore extend the time during which the respondent or his father could have reasonably contended that they were entitled to stop the petitioner from using the trade mark any further. in my opinion, therefore, the cross-objections of the opponent on this particular point must fail.10. it is next urged by ..... affidavits were put in on behalf of the opponent.these affidavits were of three persons who had been previously examined and cross-examined before the trade marks registrar in the prior proceedings. the affidavits set out in estenso the evidence given by the deponents before the learned registrar and confirmed the said ..... has a direct hearing on some of the questions that have been canvassed before me on this appeal.2. the petitioner applied for registration of his trade mark known as 'hautin' in respect of bidis, cigars, scented tobacco and tobacco throughout india on 21-8-1942. the application was advertised on 1 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR4368
..... the respondent is the proprietor of 'm/s hebare and sons' and his firm is in the business of production of sewing machines under the trade name and trade mark 'hebare'. he has been doing business for the last 20 years and has earned goodwill and reputation in the market. the sewing machines are being sold in districts ..... favour of present respondent plaintiff for consideration of rs. 5,000/=.9. it is also argued before me by learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon section 45 of the trade marks act, 1999, that unless registration of assignment is done, the respondent appellant cannot claim protection under the act. section 45 reads:45. registration of assignments and transmissions.(1) where ..... for rs. 5000/= and he thus became owner thereof from the date of deed of assignment. in the circumstances, plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining present appellant defendant from using the trade mark 'hebare'.4. appellant defendant appeared and filed written statement. according to him, he was selling his products under registered name and style 'amit and ajinkya'. the surname of the ..... 2008 by the learned district judge-ii, jalna below application exhibit 6 in regular civil suit no. 2 of 1980. by the impugned order, the defendants were restrained from using trade mark 'hebare' of the respondent.2. briefly stated, the respondent is the original plaintiff who filed application exhibit 6 before the trial court for injunction regarding infringement and passing off. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR394; 2010(112)BomLR114
..... the plaintiff/appellant has filed suit against the respondents for relief of perpetual injunction restraining them from selling safety matches, manufactured and marketed by them using the offending trade mark, which is similar to the trade mark on the safety matches manufactured by the plaintiff and for interim protection, application exh.5 is filed.3. as per plaintiff/appellant he is proprietor of distinctive ..... pending before the madras high court. if this appeal is allowed and temporary injunction as prayed is granted, that would be preventing the respondent no. 1 from using his registered trade mark. all material issues raised before this court were in issue before the appellate board and now madras high court is seized with the matter. so, if any interim order ..... . so, the proceedings before the appellate board was application under section 125 for rectification of register by the present appellant made to the appellate board for cancellation of registration of trade mark in favour of defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 1).10. present plaintiff/appellant has pleaded before the appellate board same case as is made out before this court. as ..... the label. there is difference in the kind of work and display of label. therefore, the district court believed that such deviation was not approved by the registrar of the trade mark. in absence of registration of colour combination and size, the trial court refused to hold that there is case for grant of injunction. in para 15 of the impugned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)BomCR132; (2008)110BOMLR259; 2008(2)MhLj922; LC2008(1)194
..... application for registration it has acquired a distinctive character as a result of the use made of it or is a well-known trade mark.2. a mark shall not be registered as a trade mark, ifa) it is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion;b) it contains or comprises of any ..... he has no domicile within the union but is a national of a country of the union, the country of which he is a nation.b. trade marks covered by this article may be neither denied registration nor invalidated except in the following cases:1. when they are of such a nature as to ..... sub-section 3 of section 159 is reproduced asthe provisions of this act shall apply to any application for registration of a trade mark pending at the commencement of this act and to any proceedings consequent thereon and to any registration granted in pursuance thereof.14. another submission is about ..... 16/08/2002. 12. sub-section (3) of section 159 provides that the provisions of this act shall apply to any application for registration of the trade mark pending at the commencement of the t.m. act-1999 and to any proceedings consequent thereon and also to any registration granted in pursuance thereof. 13. ..... with no order as to cost. the counsel for respondent no. 1 has given an assurance that respondent no. 1 would not collect the certificate of trade mark for a period of 4 weeks.10. on 16/08/2002, the appellants filed the present appeal. 11. the learned senior counsel dr. virendra tulzapurkar .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR276; 2008(3)MhLj523; LC2008(1)155; 2008(36)PTC463(Bom)
..... the position, the action by the plaintiff for infringement can validly be founded on the rights of the plaintiff as a registered proprietor under sections 28 and 29 of the trade marks act, 1999. the plaintiff has made out a primafacie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction both on the basis of infringement and passing off. considering the fact ..... or for that matter a continuous or concurrent user within the territory of india. on the contrary, it would appear that the plaintiff who is the registered proprietor of the trade mark kores and the associated device has an established goodwill and reputation associated with its business in stationery products, more particularly duplicating stencils. 17. the defendants have submitted that they are ..... behalf of the plaintiff, it has been submitted that the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the plaint would interalia show that there has been an extensive use of the trade mark kores by the plaintiff in india since its incorporation in 1956. the goods were initially, according to the plaintiff, imported by a british company which held shares in the ..... instituted a suit against the plaintiff in germany for infringement and passing of. an order of injunction was issued by a court in germany restraining the plaintiff from using the trade mark kores in respect of office stationery products in germany. according to the plaintiff in or about april 2007, it obtained knowledge of the circumstance that the second defendant was exporting .....Tag this Judgment!