Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi288; 1994(29)DRJ307
..... have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. admittedly, the products of the petitioner are sold under the trade mark oakey with the device of globe. whereas the trade mark which the respondent no. i wants to get registered is 'million' but not with the device of globe. the distinguishing feature ..... the product i.e. abrasive of the petitioner with that of the respondent no. 1. moreover, respondent no. 1 is not the proprietor of the alleged trade mark. thereforee, registration cannot be granted in favor of respondent no. 1. on the other hand, the main thrust of the respondent no. 1's argument ..... main contention has been that the registration sought by the respondent no.1 of his trade mark falls within the prohibition of section 12(1) of the act. it does not qualify for registration under section 9 of the act. moreover, if ..... had been opposed by the petitioner but by the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 dismissed the same on the ground that the registration of the trade mark sought by respondent no. 1 is neither identical nor similar nor would deceive or cause confusion in the minds of the customers.(3) the petitioner's ..... has been that he is not going to use the device of globe for his trade mark nor the work 'oakey'. the trade mark sought for registration has no device of globe at all. what has been sought by the respondent no.1 is an oval superimposed on .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)65; 55(1994)DLT80; 1994(30)DRJ105
..... lahore, p73 ii) pheerozeshah &: co., neemuch & udaipur. iii) jamsetjee & co., cawnpore (now kanpur); and iv) bala prashad & sons, lucknow. c) more recently, the plaintiff's whisky bearing the trade mark glenfid- dich and the related label has been imported into india by: i) india tourism development corporation (itdc), 4th floor, jeevan vihar building, 3, parliament street, new delhi for resale ..... ritz, hotel president, hotel taj mahal, hotel holiday inn etc. f) the plaintiff is also filing documents to show that several cases of its scotch whisky bearing the trade mark glenfiddich have been directly sold to indian customers at least since the year 1946 for redistribution and actual consumption. these customers are hotels, restaurants, department stores and the details ..... article, as postulated by the design act, the definition of design given in the designs act, would not apply to the label. (101) the trade & merchandise marks act, 1958 deals with trade marks. according to section 20) of the act, 'mark' includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter or numeral or any combination thereof. section 2(2) of ..... under the designs act, 1911, relates to article covered by the said definition, and as labels are primarily intended to be used as marks', which marks or trade marks are intended to show a connection during the course of trade between the manufacturer and the goods sold, cannot be made subject matter of the design, postulated by section 2(v) of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1995Delhi13; 1994(2)ARBLR249(Delhi); 55(1994)DLT208; 1994(30)DRJ167
..... present case, the plaintiff has made a grievance of the defendant indulging in sale of electric and electronic domestic appliances, namely, washing machines, electric fans, desert cooler etc. under the trade mark 'weston' in respect whereof propriety rights have been claimed by the plaintiff.it is stated that the plaintiff came to know of the defendant's activities when it received a ..... notice on 4th february, 1991 calling upon the plaintiff to desist from the use of the trade mark 'weston' in connection with the washing machines manufactured by the plaintiff as the defendants were carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling washing machines and other electric and electronic ..... goods under the trade mark 'weston.the said notice was replied to on 6th february, 1991 denying the allegations in the notice sent on behalf of the defendant. (3) the case of the plaintiff is ..... that the defendant's use of the trade' mark 'weston' in respect of the electric and electronic goods is resulting in immense deception and confusion and that such user by the defendant is leading to passing off the inferior .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1273; 1994(30)DRJ728
..... has been filed which is still pending. the said govt. undertaking has been brought into existence admittedly much before the plaintiff started using the aforesaid trade mark. 'cmcs' trade mark, in fact, is the short abbreviation of the said govt.undertaking which is also functioning in the same field. so, prima facie, it ..... works vs anuj electronics (supra) the argument was noticed in para 10 of the judgment that as the plaintiff and defendant are both praetorspraetorsof trade mark belonging to japanese company, thus, relief of injunction cannot be given to the plaintiff and the division bench's judgment was referred to. the ..... and it was held by a division bench of this court that user of the trade mark rabber/rabber by the plaintiff and the trade mark rabber by the defendant being tainted with piracy from the very beginning and no law having been brought to notice providing ..... appears that the plaintiff is the praetors of the trade mark belonging to the third person. a similar question arose for decision in the case of capital plastic industries vs kapital plastic industries. 1989 ptc 98 ..... deception. according to the plaintiff, defendants 1 & 2 are ex-employees of the plaintiff and since may 1992 they have started using the same trade mark as of the plaintiff with a view to take advantage of the reputation built by the plaintiff in this field of computer training. (3) .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 93(2001)DLT228
..... ) of the copyright act as the plaintiffs are the proprietors and author of the said artistic work and infringement of the trade mark as they are the proprietors of the trade mark but also amounts to actionable wrong of passing off by virtue of being the prior and continuous user of the carton.32 ..... is how does an unwary customer at first instance and glance select the articles or the goods. the overall look of the cartons and the trade mark of the defendant reflects pronounced deceptive similarities and even experienced person would also get confused as to its source and origin.28. the defendant has ..... aforesaid parameters within which the action for passing off falls there is no escape from the conclusion that there is not only infringement of the trade mark which was duly registered by the plaintiff but also of its copyright apart from the act of the defendant being covered by the mischief of ..... a consideration for refusing an ex parte injunction but it does not oust the plaintiff from seeking relief of permanent injunction for either infringement of the trade mark or the copyright or for action of passing off, the counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon m/s hindustan pencils pvt. ltd. vs ..... its product under the said trademark for the last more than three years. on merits the defendant has averred that there is no similarity between the trade mark of the parties. it is stated that the goods of the plaintiff are sold, demanded and asked for as 'telephone brand' sat isabgol. it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996(25)ARBLR370(Delhi); 61(1996)DLT12
..... on march 18, 1994 issued an ex-parte interim injunction against the respondent. by that order respondent was restrained from using, selling or offering for sale or advertising goods bearing trade mark 'modella' with or without lion device. however, subsequently, as noted above, the order was vacated on september 19, 1994. it is this order which has been impugned by ..... by the plaintiff and the defendant. the same, however, has remained unanswered till date.'(2) in the plaint it was further averred that the defendant has illegally adopted the trade-mark 'modella' with lion device which belongs to the appellant. the plaintiff also claimed infringement of the copyright by the defendant. along with the plaintiff, an application under order 39 ..... as under :- the appellant m/s. modella woolens ltd., instituted a suit against the respondent m/s. modella knitwears ltd. for perpetual injunction, infringement and passing off of trade mark, infringement of copyright and rendition of accounts against the respondent. it was averred inter-alia in the plaint by the appellant that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of ..... the learned single judge dated september 19, 1994 whereby interim order dated march 18, 1994 restraining the respondents from using, selling or offering for sale or advertising goods bearing trade mark 'modella' with and without lion device was vacated and consequently, the application of the appellant-plaintiff, i.a.2754/94 under order 39 rules 1 and 2 civil procedure code was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996(37)DRJ97
..... .1994.(6) from the several documents filed by the plaintiff it is borne out prima facie that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade marks as claimed by him and has been using the said trade marks in the trade of rice. the material question that arises for decision is whether name hara qilla along with the device as used by the defendants can ..... be said to be infringing the trade marks of the plaintiff and/or amounts to passing off the defendants' goods as that of the plaintiff.(7) there are two things arising for consideration; the name and the device. ..... application for registration of hara qilla with device of fort and the same was advertised in the trade mark journal dated 1.5.89. the trade mark of the defendant is absolutely different and distinct from the alleged trade mark of the plaintiff. there is no similarity between the mark and device of the plaintiff and thereforee there is no room for any confusion. there is no ..... they are being reproduced or impressed upon their products. however, photo copies of the trade mark registration certificates are available on record. i have already given a brief description of the plaintiffs trade marks as discernible from the above documents. the defendant's trade mark hara qilla as appearing in the trade mark journal appears to be along with a device of qilla. the defendant's qilla is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 63(1996)DLT140
..... plaintiffs or any other strip which is deceptively similar and reproduction of the plaintiffs strips in any manner ; or any other deceptively similar trade marks so as to pass off or enabling others to pass off the defendant's goods as and for the goods of the plaintiffs or ..... commissioner with the directions to visit the premises of the defendant or any other place where the infringing goods medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, bearing the trade mark 'baragan' may be lying finished or in an unfinished condition and prepare an inventory of the said goods and seize the samples of all ..... that plaintiff no.3 has spent considerable amount by way of promotional expenditure for popularising the said trade marks and by reason of extensive publicity and use of the said trade mark carried out as aforesaid the trade marks have come to be associated by the traders and the members of the public exclusively with the ..... in that behalf by plaintiff no. 1 and 2 respectively. thus, plaintiff no.3 is a registered user of the said trade mark 'baralgan' and a licensed user of the said device(2) it is alleged that plaintiff no.3 has been manufacturing and selling the said ..... is still pending for registration. it is alleged that plaintiff no.1 and 2 have allowed plaintiff no.3 to use the above referred trade marks in respect of the goods manufactured by plaintiff no.3 in india under strict supervision and control and according to the standards and specifications prescribed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996(26)ARBLR90(Delhi); 64(1996)DLT68
..... the trade mark. the first defendant started using the trade mark with the label similar to that of the plaintiff. the plaintiff issued notice through counsel on 8.9.1995. the first defendant sent a reply on 9 ..... produce the original documents. the assistant registrar held that the first defendant cannot be given the benefit of section 12(3) of the trade mark act either as honest and concurrent user or can seek protection. it is admitted by the first defendant that the order of the assistant registrar dated 27.1.1995 has ..... at all be applied to the facts of this case. (14) the documents filed by the first defendant cannot be put against the plaintiff for, the assistant registrar of the trade mark had held that the bills produced by the first defendant are not free from doubt and thereforee, the first defendant cannot rely upon those documents. the first defendant failed to ..... of the plaintiff. when the first defendant applied for registration in application no. 482197 in class - 26, the plaintiff lodged opposition in opposition no. amd - 507. the assistant registrar of trade marks ahmedabad passed the order on 27.1.1995, rejecting the application filed by the first defendant and accepting the opposition lodged by the plaintiff. thereforee, the first defendant cannot use .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)853; 1996(26)ARBLR417(Delhi); 3(1996)CLT384; 63(1996)DLT438
..... read with section 151 civil procedure code (ia no. 4943/96). in para 5 of the plaint plaintiff has, inter alia, alleged that the approximate promotional expenditure incurred by it on the trade mark liv 52 is rs. 3 crores per annum and the approximate annual turnover for the year 1995-96 was over rs. 30 crores. looking at these figures the plaintiff-company ..... to the question whether the sound of one word resembles too nearly the sound of another so as to bring the former within the limits of section 12 of the trade marks act, 1938, must nearly always depend on first impression, for obviously a person who is familiar with both words will neither be deceived nor confused. it is the person who ..... -52 is basically a liver tonic prescribed for liver disorder and to protect the liver against various dys-functions, damages and hepatotoxine. trade mark liv-52 is a mark coined in 1955 by the plaintiff and it has no dictionary meaning or any meaning in common parlance. it is alleged that the plaintiff has been incurring approximately ..... allegations that it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of ayurvedic medicinal preparations since 1930 and some of its well known ayurvedic medicines are sold under the trade marks - abana, cystone, diarex, diabecon, gasex, geriforte, herbolax, liv 52, lukol, mentat, pilex, rumalaya, septilin, speman, styplon, tentex forte, bonnisan drops, geriforte syrup, koflet syrup, hicolin cream, rumalaya cream etc. liv .....Tag this Judgment!