Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Sorted by: recent Court: delhi Page 1 of about 23,821 results (0.059 seconds)

Oct 03 2016 (HC)

M/s. P.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Bhagwati Lecto Veget ...

Court : Delhi

..... /s kirorimal kashiram marketing vs m/s. shree sita chawal udyog mill, the primary issue before the division bench was whether the respondent s impugned trade mark golden deer was deceptively similar to the appellant s registered trade mark double deer withrespect to sale of the identical goods i.e. rice. the learned single judge had refused an injunction. it was a case where ..... , 2016 holding that what intrigues the court is the claim of the plaintiffs being not based on the allegation of deceptive similarity to the trademark india salaam or the trade mark al habib ,but with reference to the two marks taken together. the learned single judge has held that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they are using the two ..... not likely to split the components of a name and consider the etymological meaning thereof, the rival marks amritdhara and lakshmandhara were held to bephonetically and deceptively similar. the division bench held that the impugned trade mark hara qilla contained the essential feature of theplaintiff s trade mark i.e. the word qilla which along with the device of afort was deceptively similar to the ..... (40) ptc 417 (del.) (db), amar singh chawal wala vs. shree vardhan rice and genl.mills, the two rival trade marks were lal qilla and haraqilla in respect of rice and the issue before the division bench was thedeceptive similarity of the marks thereof. the plaintiffs had adopted the trademark golden qilla in the year 1954 for rice and lal qilla in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2016 (HC)

M/s. Khushi Ram Behari Lal Vs. P.V Kanakaraj Trading As Kalpatharu Tra ...

Court : Delhi

..... infer that the plaintiff was carrying on business in delhi. in the present case, however, the specific averment is that the defendant "is selling the impugned products under the impugned trade mark taj mahal with device of taj mahal within the territorial jurisdiction of this court." consequently, the above decision is of no assistance to the defendant. 9. in dabur india ltd ..... farm, new delhi-110062 which is its nerve centre and from where the plaintiff has been controlling each and every aspect of its said goods and business under their said trade mark/label. the plaintiff is also working for gain and carrying on its said goods and business within the territorial jurisdiction of this hon'ble court. this hon'ble court as ..... plaint reads as under: 37. that this hon ble court has the territorialjurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit. the defendant is selling the impugned products under the impugned trade mark taj mahal with device of taj mahal within the territorial jurisdiction of this hon ble court i.e. lahori gate, alipur etc. and other partof delhi. the defendants impugned acts ..... taj mahal has been in toto adopted by the defendants and for the same basic product i.e. rice. in relation to such product the trade mark taj mahal with device can be said to be an arbitrary mark with a degree of distinctiveness that enables the consumer to associate the product with the producer of the product. in this context, prima facie .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2016 (HC)

M/s. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs. H.E. Industries and Others

Court : Delhi

..... m. diesel pvt. ltd. (2009) 2 scc 768. even section 44 of the act reads as under:- 44. assignability and transmissibility or associated trade marks. associated trade marks shall be assignable and transmissible only as a whole and not separately, but, subject to the provisions of this act, they shall, for all ..... cutting in the page. not only that, the plaintiff on the basis of this doctored document, procured the split trade mark registrations and orders from the trade mark office. the entire proceedings before the trade mark office and the present suit proceedings are fraud and stands vitiated. (ii) assuming the said assignment to be ..... 9th march, 1994, they were assigned together, which resulted in orders being pr/985 and pr/25 being issued by the trade mark registry. with regard to the trade mark application no. 398342, it is the plaintiff's submission that the trademark no. 398342 was abandoned and the same was confirmed ..... m/s classic equipments pvt. ltd and m/s vidyut udyog dated 9 th march, 1994 and obtaining the split trade mark registrations and orders from the trade mark registry on the basis of the same does not even arise as the original deed as well the copies thereof were ..... trademark "johnson" in relation to electric water heaters (excluding instant type geysers). be that as it may, it is submitted that even the trade mark application no. 398342 in class 11 under which the defendant no.4 is claiming rights qua electric geysers, was abandoned by the said defendant long .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2016 (HC)

ITC Ltd Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd

Court : Delhi

..... has got but he has not been deceived into getting it. misrepresentation has played no part in his purchase. 30. in kerly s law of trade marks and trade names, on the aspect ofthe plaintiff having to prove reputation it is said: as in any other passing off case, a claimant relying upon getup ..... mr. chandra, had to be built over several years and not in a few months. he also referred to the passage from kerly s law of trade marks and trade names. 22. on the aspect of deception and confusion, mr. chandra referred to the decision of the u.s. supreme court in wal mart stores ..... and co. (supra). the appellants there owned certain registered trademarks one of which was glucose and was used on their half pound biscuit packets. another registered trade mark was a wrapper with its colour scheme, general set up and entire collocation of words. the wrapper was of buff colour and depicted a farm yard ..... . the relevant extract of the said decision, which has been reiterated in many subsequent judgments reads as under: the use by the defendant of the trade mark of the plaintiff is not essential in an action for passing off, but is the sine qua non in the case of an action for infringement ..... ltd. v. the zamindara engineering co. (supra) where it observed as under: in an action for infringement where the defendant's trade mark is identical with the plaintiff's mark, the court will not enquire whether the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion. but where the alleged infringement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2016 (HC)

Vijay Solvex Ltd. and Another Vs. Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. and Anoth ...

Court : Delhi

..... agreement dated 03.07.1984. the application on form tm-24 for change of entry (ownership) was filed on 23.03.1988 in the trade mark registry by the said raghuvar for entering itself as assignee, and was allowed on 05.05.1988. a consequential entry was made in the register ..... two years filed the objection to the application for registering the assignment. however saurabh s application was allowed. the mark was duly registered. after passing the order dated 13.05.2010 by the trade marks office favouring saurabh, it became proprietor of the trademark, (no. 1324290 in class-29) in respect of ..... was there any evidence to that effect. learned counsel argued that there are several invoices which clearly showed that the defendant's always traded under the mark ashoka, and that such goods are well known. 15. counsel for saurabh argued on the other hand that the single judge has ..... issued to the plaintiff soon after the assignment was executed conceded that the defendant would not infringe the trademark by using any identical mark or any mark resembling it so as to result in deception or confusion. in the light of these details it was held that without the ..... noticed significantly that vijay industries (the apparent concern of the plaintiff saurabh) had filed an infringement suit seeking permanent injunction and alleging that the mark scooter had been infringed. vijay filed an application seeking vacation of ex parte injunction. in that vijay solvex specifically urged that the plaintiff undertakes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2016 (HC)

Yahoo! Inc Vs. Sanjay Patel and Others

Court : Delhi

..... its well knowntrademark yahoo. 9. the affidavit of pw-1 further states that yahoo is a well-known trademark (defined under section 2(1) (zg) in the trade marks act, 1999). the facts set out in the affidavit of pw-1 supported by voluminous documentation establish that the defendants 1 and 2 are involved in large scale infringing ..... selling, offering for sale, distributing products or offering services, advertising including on the internet, and in any other manner using the yahoo trademark or any other deceptively similar mark as part of their product name etc. amounting to infringement of the plaintiff sregistered trademarks as enlisted in annexure a of the plaint, specifically plaintiff s trademark registration no. ..... extensive advertising and sales promotion, and extensive goodwill and reputation associated with the yahoo trademark, it is stated to have become easily identifiable by members of the public and trade, as originating exclusively from the plaintiff. (viii) the pending trademark registrations for yahoo formative trademarks filed by the plaintiff and the copies of trademark registration certificates of the ..... , selling, offering for sale, distributing products or offering services, advertising including on the internet, and in any other manner using the yahoo trademark or any other deceptively similar mark as part of their product name, etc. amounting to infringement of the plaintiff/s registered trademarks in classes 29 and 30. 3. subsequently on 23rd february 2016, this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2016 (HC)

Staar Surgical Company Vs. Care Group India and Another

Court : Delhi

..... , surgical ocular implants, instruments for implanting surgical ocular implants regarding refractive surgery and all allied and cognate goods under the under the impugned trade mark/label ipcl or any other trade mark/label identical with or deceptively similar to plaintiffs said trade mark/label visian icl and/or icl. 10. the defendants filed fao (os) no. 675 of 2015 which came to be disposed of ..... piece and that the defendant no.1 worked at reducing it to less than rs.200 per piece. 12. the defendants point out that the use of ipcl as a trade mark has been since 2013. however, the plaintiff s application for registration of icl was subsequently made on 11th june 2015. the defendant on their part applied for registration of the ..... product, defendant no.2 is the distributor. 8. the case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have adopted an identical/deceptively similar trade mark/label ipcl in relation to the impugned goods and business. it is, according to the plaintiff, similar in each and every aspect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic ..... engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of similar implantable lenses for eyes as that of the plaintiff. the defendants are stated to have adopted and started using the trade mark ipcl in respect of manufacturing, selling and exporting of intraocular lenses manufactured and marketed by it. it is stated that while defendant no.1 manufactures, sells and exports its .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2016 (HC)

Times Publishing House Ltd Vs. Financial Times Ltd and Others

Court : Delhi

..... paragraph 31 and 41 as under:- 31. section 124(1)(ii) textually indicates that premised on the plea of invalidity of the registration of the trade mark (of the defendant, or the plaintiff-as the case may be), the court would frame the issue pertaining to the invalidity of the trademark to ..... no. 468932. 6. an application was filed in the year 2010 praying for the suit to be stayed and needless to state section 124 of the trade marks act, 1999 was pressed into aid. 7. concededly there are two limbs of section 124; which would be as per clauses (i) and (ii) ..... lays a challenge to the order dated december 15, 2010 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the appellant s application under section 124 of the trade marks act, 1999 seeking stay of the cs (os) no.2055/2001 filed by the respondent pending adjudication before the ipab of rectification proceedings pertaining to ..... respondent. 2. the respondent filed cs (os) no.2055/2001 claiming to be the registered proprietor abroad as well as in india to the letter mark ft alleging violation thereof by the appellant. 3. the plaint was instituted in the year 2001. in the written statement filed the appellant inter-alia ..... s trademark registration no.468932. in the replication the respondent highlighted that the appellant had also sought registration of the letter mark ft and thus could not plead that the said mark was incapable of being registered. 4. the suit meandered. the respondent took nearly 4 years to file a replication. thereafter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2016 (HC)

Columbia Holdings Private Limited Vs. SSP Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

..... . m/s. anand kumar deepak kumar, which is not applicable in the facts of the present case as it was a suit based on infringement of statutory rights under the trade marks act. in the present case, the petitioner is seeking retirement from the firm, rendition of the accounts and return of its capital, which are all rights arising out of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 2016 (HC)

Tata Sky Ltd Vs. Youtube Llc and Others

Court : Delhi

..... may have against the video, out of which the user can simply check and report his specific grievance against the video. this list includes issues such as spam, copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, misleading content etc. and also gives an option of reporting 'other legal issues' which includes issues such as circumvention of technological measures etc. (iii) in addition to the aforesaid ..... august 2015 in ia no. 17808 of 2015 filed by the plaintiff tata sky ltd. ('tata sky') restrained the defendants (which included youtube llc defendant no. 1) from using the trade mark tata sky in any manner directly or indirectly inany of their websites including posts, messages, discussions, forums, blogs or any other form of electronic media, without written authorization of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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