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!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)803; 63(1996)DLT660; 1996(38)DRJ416
..... and marketing ayurvedic medicines for the treatment of stop menses clear. he has been in the business since january, 1990 carrying on business under the trade mark mensurol. the trade mark according to the plaintiff is registered. originally the business was carrying on by a parter and now he is the proprietor. according to the plaintiff, ..... of the defendants and the plaintiff are shown in colour at page 25 of the application. (12) the plaintiff does not claimed to be trading under a trade mark which has been invented by him and the name adopted by the plaintiff is a very common name which is prevailing in the medical field whether ..... is the sister concern of a private ltd. company which has a very large turn over more than 50 lacs. the distinctive features of the two trade marks and the cartons are mentioned in the application in the following terms:-____________________________________________________________________________ si.no. menscure mensurol on the package ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 1. the name of ..... ajendra kumar aggarwal, proprietor of dayal medico carrying on business in mathura has filed the above suit against two defendants for an injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and injunction on the ground of passing off. the product invented and manufactured by the plaintiff and the first defendant arc ayurvedic medicines. according to the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)877; 1996(26)ARBLR425(Delhi); 63(1996)DLT671; 1996(38)DRJ748
..... on behalf of the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly, dealing in pharmaceutical formulations under the trade mark seflox or any other trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff trade mark seflox till the disposal of the suit. thereforee, is no. 9918/95 under order xxxix rules i and 2 filed by the plaintiff ..... the word was invented by the plaintiff and that will be evident from a letter dated 4th of the april 1990 from acme company patent and trade mark attorney to the plaintiff wherein the trade mark seflox is mentioned. thereforee, the fact that the plaintiff had invented the word cannot be disputed by the defendant is the argument by the learned counsel ..... controller, hyderabad dated 1.9.1994. 2. photocopy of first batch sheet pertaining to seflox of the defendant dated 18.8.1992. 3. photocopy of the trade mark application no 563781 for registration of trade mark seflox by the defendant dated 13.12.1991. 4. photocopy of sale invoices of seflox tablets of the defendant from the period 1992-1995. 5. photocopy ..... for those of the defendant; ii) a decree for delivery up of the infringing goods including tablets, capsules, packaging, cartons, dies, blocks or any other article bearing the trade mark seflox by the plaintiff to an authorized representative of the defendant for destruction/erasure; iii) an order for rendition of account of profits illegally earned by the plaintiff by unauthorized .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 93(2001)DLT600
..... to maintain an account of profits every year and file the same in the court. we are persuaded to take this direction as the object of the trade mark act is to protect the proprietary right of a registered trademark holder but not to be a source of monopoly where the holder of the trademark does not ..... do so great loss would be caused not only to the rival trader but to those who depend on his business for their livelihood. (reference to law of trade marks and passing off by p narayanan, 5th edition, page 441).34. it may, however, be pointed out that there can not be any hard and fast ..... kaviraj pandi durga dutt sharma vs . navaratna pharmaceutical laboratories : 1scr737 where the supreme court was of the view that if the essential features of the trade mark had been adopted the effect that the get up, packing and other written on the packets or the goods or on the packets in which the goods were ..... . in point (k) it has been observed that the court shall not protect the right of proprietor unless there is sale of the articles to which trade mark is attached or related.27. the learned single judge though has considered the observations in the cluett peadbody's case (supra) was of the view that ..... the prices also may by so different that there would be no probability of deception of the public. nevertheless, in an action on the trade mark, that is to say in a infringement action, an injunction would issue as soon as it is proved that the defendant is improperly using the plaintiff's .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IAD(Delhi)573; 65(1997)DLT346; 1997(40)DRJ321
..... all types of locks & handles in class 6 of the fourth schedule of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958. he further stated that the said trade mark was advertised in trade marks journal no. 1099 dated 16.03.,1995. the said trade mark is registered as from 2nd day of july 1990. by virtue of the said registration ..... and according to the plaintiff, as per this document the defendant has started the business only in 1993. annexure b is the carton wherein the trade mark is printed. annexure c is application on form tm-16 alleged to have been submitted by the plaintiff to the registrar wherein the date of ..... and/or vacation of the injunction order dated 7th may 1996 granted against the defendant. the defendant had stated that it has been using the trade mark vijayan in respect of locks and locking devices ever since the year 1960. the defendant has also given the sales figures. the defendant has also ..... withstand the test of validity for even a minute because there is an irreconcilable difference between the trademark of the plaintiff which was advertised in the trade mark journal and that which is shown in its certificate for legal proceedings filed at page 28 of its documents. the defendant submits that this reason ..... in the register by an error. notice is accordingly hereby given to you under section 56(4) of the act as to why the impugned trade mark should not be removed from the register forthwith. you should submit your reply to the aforesaid notice to the under signed in the form of .....Tag this Judgment!