Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Page 11 of about 182,648 results (0.152 seconds)

Jun 24 2009 (HC)

Paragon Steels (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr. M. Paramasi ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2009KAR3446; 2009(6)KarLJ566:2009(5)AIRKarR431

..... fourth schedule to the act then there is no bar for using the same for goods and services specified under different clauses, except when the trade mark is a 'well known trade mark'.10. in the impugned order the trial court held that the trademark of plaintiffs is a well-known trademark. section 2(1)(zg) of the act, defines what ..... a well-known trademark.section 6 and 7 of section 11 of the act former specifies what are the relevant facts to be taken into consideration while determining 'well known trade mark'. section 8 of section 11 of the act specifies that if a trademark has been determined to be well-known in at least one relevant section of the public in ..... the names, different types of rubber products, foot wear and its allied parts. on the other hand the defendants are dealing in twisted steel rods. there can be number of trade marks containing the same name comfortably co-exist when they are associated with different goods or services and in different business jurisdictions. when registration is made in a particular clause in ..... relation to certain type of goods from the year 1975 and the same was registered in the year 1987. on the other hand the defendants are using the same trade mark for different goods from the year 1983. therefore at this stage the balance of convenience is not in favour of plaintiffs.13. the word 'passing off means that the defendants .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2006 (HC)

Reebok India Company (a Company Registered Under the Companies Act) Re ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2006KAR3961; 2007(34)PTC164(Karn)

..... i am' and therefore the plaintiff alone can claim rights over the said slogan as a trade mark.4. the defendants contended that:(1) as per section 2(1)(w) of the trade marks act, 1999, the expression, 'registered trade mark' means a trade mark which is actually on the register of trade marks maintained by the government of india and which is in force. admittedly, the slogan, 'i am ..... manufactured by the plaintiff. whether there is, prima facie, any deception resulting in passing off and consequent loss or likelihood of damage to the plaintiff, is not forthcoming. the registered trade mark of both the parties are totally different. they can be easily distinguished. whether the usage of the general phrase 'i am what i am' has resulted in any such confusion ..... the facts of the present case.8. per contra the learned counsel for the respondent supports the findings recorded by the court below contending that the definition of the expression 'trade mark' includes even a set of words. he draws the attention of the court to the following reported decisions:i) laxmikant v. patel v. chetanbhai shah and anr. : air2002sc275 ;ii) satyam ..... 'i am what i am'. the appellants herein are aggrieved by the grant of temporary injunction restraining them from using the logo 'i am what i am' along with their trade mark.2. the appellants herein are defendants in the suit, o.s.no. 16861/2005 filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against them restraining them from using on their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (HC)

Chennai Hotel Saravana Bhavan and ors. Vs. Hotel Saravana Bhavan

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2005(4)ALD263; 2005(3)ALT789

..... with the registrar of firms bearing no. 49/2004 on 15-6-2004 and also made a representation to the registrar to get the trade mark registered under the trade marks act, 1999 and the government of india trade marks registry assigned no. 12899989. thus since april, 1998, the plaintiff's firm is doing hotel business under the name and style of hotel ..... facts and circumstances of the case, i shall now first proceed to consider whether any of the parties can claim exclusive rights over the trade mark and whether the provisions of the trade marks act insofar as infringement of trade mark is concerned.20. at the outset, it must be remembered that for claiming exclusive right over a trademark, one has to register ..... this case, the plaintiff which was carrying on internet business through domain name starting with words 'sify' sought injunction for passing off action, under section 29 of the trade marks act, against the defendant, which subsequently started business under domain name 'siffynet'. the fact that plaintiff is the largest internet service providers in the country and the reputation and ..... for permanent injunction under section 51 of the copyright act was filed for passing off and copyright. the plaintiff was manufacturing pharmaceutical preparations for veterinary use under the trade mark nilverm with design container label registered as copyright while the defendant was manufacturing and marketing same drug bearing trademark as nilsole. the packing material of the defendant was a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2005 (HC)

Pandugula Vali Basha Vs. N. Mohammed Haris and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2005(4)ALT760

..... while making the purchases. as it is not possible for any customer even dealing specially in such goods to make any distinction between the trade mark 'exite' and trade mark 'exide', defendant, prima facie, appear to have used this particular trade mark 'exide' with a view to cause confusion amongst the customers nd to take benefit of the reputation built up by the plaintiff with respect ..... 616, the issue is not to be determined by a comparison of he emblems in dispute. the relevant passage at page 616 to 618 in the text book 'law of trade marks and trade names' by kerly, may be usefully extracted hereunder:'two important questions are suggested by the sections concerned with deceptive resemblance: a. who are the persons whom the resemblance must ..... registered user using by way of permitted use; and(ii) that when he became aware of the existence and nature of the plaintiff's right in the trade mark, he forthwith ceased to use the trade mark in relation to goods in respect of which it was registered; or(c) where in a suit for passing off the defendant satisfies the court-(i) that ..... clothes (virendra dresses v. varindera garments - : air1982delhi482 ).considering the decided cases and evidence in this case including material objects produced and oral evidence, we are of the opinion that the trade mark 'nambisan's' used by the plaintiff and 'nambeesan' used by the defendants are deceptively similar and public are likely to be deceived as phonetically the names are deceptively similar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2007 (HC)

Adepu Surendra Vs. Adepu Ravindra

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(6)ALD718

..... and petitioner-plaintiff started quarrelling for family partition. it is stated that the plaintiff published about the trade mark in west godavari, but not published in karimnagar where the respondent-defendant is living and carrying business. it is further stated that when the father of the petitioner ..... plaintiff. it is also stated that the plaintiff fraudulently without knowledge of the father or himself obtained a registration certificate on 29.9.2004 in respect of the trade mark of adepu 222, photo of his grandfather with brand name of device label being used in respect of goods manufactured by the joint family after getting fraudulent registration ..... out by the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff, granting of temporary injunction is not just and proper. the learned counsel also had pointed out to the relevant statutory provisions under the trade marks act, 1999. the learned counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions.4. per contra, sri hema prakash rao, learned counsel representing the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff would ..... representing the appellant-respondent-defendant would submit that the relationship between the parties is not in controversy and the fact that the respondent obtained the registration of the trade mark without putting the other family members on notice also is not in serious controversy. the learned counsel would submit that the label popularly known as 'adepu 222 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 1970 (HC)

Pt. Ram Avtar Sharma and ors. Vs. Pt. Chakradhar Saran Sharma and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1971All157

..... 1944 and 1945) but on the date of the passing of the decree respondent no. 1 alone was the proprietor of the two trade marks. as for the trade mark being publici juris, the learned single judge held that gadadhar prasad had the exclusive right to use the word 'himkalyan tail' which was ..... application the name of chakradhar saran was substituted and all the formalities were completed for the publication of the trade marks in the trade mark journal. the registrar has further stated that these two trade marks were thus registered, which registration is effective from the date of the application and has further been renewed ..... the expression 'contrary to any law for the time being in force' in section 8 (c) means any law other than the trade marks act. section 6 of the trade marks act is not covered by the wordings of section 8 (c) of the act. (see ram rakhpal's case supra). 25. ..... the affidavit of kashi nath that sri gadadhar prasad made a deliberate false statement that he was the sole proprietor of the trade marks whereas in fact the said trade marks were the property of the joint hindu family consisting of gadadhar prasad, his sons and grandsons. it has further been alleged ..... hindu family in the joint hindu family business'. admittedly these applications and amendments thereof were filed by gadadhar prasad under section 14 of the trade marks act. the registrar was acquainted with the two statements of facts contained therein. it cannot accordingly be held that the registrar was defrauded .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1955 (HC)

Tak Chand Fillumal Vs. Western India Match Co. Ltd.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1955All404

..... be possible. (s) section 20 is: '20(1) no person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark unless such trade mark has been continuously in use since before the 25th day of february, 1937, by such person or by a predecessor in title of his and unless an application for ..... chadwick and bros. ltd. air 1948 mad 481 (c). 13. in the 'madras case' it was admitted that it was to be decided without reference to the provisions of the trade marks act, 5 of 1940. 14. the other cases, are distinguishable. the observations therein may impliedly go against the present appellant. in the 'calcutta case' mukherjea j. observed: 'it is not ..... looks to us illogical that those points should be determinable by a court inferior to a district court even though section 73, trade marks act provides that a suit for the infringement ofa trade mark or otherwise relating to any rightin a trade mark should not be instituted in a court other than a district court. we, have, therefore, to interpret the two provisions referred to ..... people in general consider the goods bearing that label to be goods manufactured by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has thus acquired an exclusive right and title to their trade marks which are also registered. in this connection it is also mentioned in the plaint that the aforesaid label stands as a symbol for the goods manufactured by the plaintiff. 3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1985 (HC)

Bata India Limited Vs. Pyare Lal and Co., Meerut City and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1985All242

..... obtained registration of the name 'bata' in all major indian languages and also got it registered in english language in capital letters. apart from the above registered trade mark, the plaintiff-company had also a trade mark 'bsc (standing for bata shoe company) and its registration number is 270102. 'bata is put on all goods produced by the company as well as cartons ..... respondents cited the following decisions : the first case cited is thomas bear & sons v. prayag narain . the appeal arose out of an action brought to restrain infringement of trade mark rights and passing off. the appellants were manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes and of tobacco described as 'virginia bird's eyes' smoked in pipes. these goods were sold in india ..... of the district judge with the relief mentioned earlier. 6. the defendants denied all the allegations in the plaint and alleged that the name of 'bata' was registered under the trade marks act, 1940 in respect of canvas, rubber, leather shoes, rubber monlith (foot-wear) rubber heels, rubber sole, rubber plates, leather soles, half soles, wooden heels, heels, socks and ..... registered in the office of the registrar of assurance, calcutta, asserting its exclusive right to the user of the sole name 'bata'. after the enactment of the trade marks act, 1940, the plaintiff-company registered its trade mark 'bata' in respect of several types of goods including canvas, rubber, rubber plates, leather shoes, rubber monlith etc., included in cl. 55 of the fourth .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1958 (HC)

Satya Deo Gupta Vs. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1958All823

..... 276 : 'in order to see whether it should be registered, we have to consider whether 'tripcastroid' so nearly resembles the trade mark 'castrol', which i.s the registered trade mark of the appellants, as to be calculated to deceive; and we have to consider the interests of the general public who ..... like 'amrit' and 'dhara' cannot be made the monopoly of any individual. we, therefore, see no reason to disallow registration of the trade mark 'lakshman dhara'. 27. this normally would have been enough to dispose of the whole appeal but in deference to the lengthy arguments that were advanced ..... the probability of deception purely on a consideration of the relative nature of the two words themselves, consisting of, first, the opponents' trade mark, and, secondly, the trade marrk which the applicants seek to register. that being so, and concentrating on the construction of those two 'words, i must say that ..... of shri satya deo gupta or they are sold or can be passed off, as belonging to theamritdhara pharmacy simply because they carried the trade mark 'lakshman dhara.' learned counsel for the lakshman dhara pharmacy has arguedthat the words 'lakshman dhara' are both words well known to the public ..... he found that the medicine 'lakshman dhara' had admittedly been sold mostly in this state. as a result, therefore, the registration of the, trade mark 'lakshman dhara' was ordered subject to the condition mentioned above. aggrieved by this decision, the applicant has come up in appeal to this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2006 (HC)

Anwar Mohammad Khan Son of Sri Niyamatullah Khan Vs. Sri Taj Mohammad ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2166

..... 1957. admittedly the registration number is under the copyright act, 1957, and not under the act, 1999. there cannot be and there is no infringement of an unregistered trade mark under the trade mark act, 1999. however all the three ingredients of passing off, i.e. disclosure of goodwill, demonstration of misrepresentation and likelihood of suffering of irreparable harm and injury in ..... of 'passing off as observed hereinbefore. in view of the provisions of section 23 in consequence to the provisions of sections 18, 19 and 21 of the trade marks act, 1999 the trade mark of the plaintiff-respondents has to be registered as of date of making of such application, i.e. 1993 which would be deemed to be the date ..... of acceptance of such application before its registration, neither there has been any opposition to the said registration under section 21. section 23 requires the registrar to register the trade mark, where the procedure for registration has been completed (subject to the conditions mentioned therein) and the same shall be registered as of date of making of such application ..... assumption that the plaintiffs-respondents had a registered trademark; that the plaintiff-respondents came forward with the allegations in their suit that their trademark was registered under the trade mark act bearing number 1255208 but when the appellant-defendant controverted this assertion then the plaintiff-respondents with permission from court amended their plaint and substituted the number by another .....

Tag this Judgment!


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