Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Sorted by: recent Page 6 of about 183,900 results (0.194 seconds)

Jan 11 2017 (HC)

Ms Nanak Ispat P Ltd Through Its Director Amit Gupta Vs. Union of Indi ...

Court : Jharkhand

..... of natural justice, hence, this writ petition is entertained at this stage. it has been held by hon'ble supreme court in the case of 'whirlpool corporation vs. registrar of trade marks, mumbai & ors', reported in (1998) 8 scc 1, in paragraph no. 14 and 15, which reads as under: 14. the power to issue prerogative writs under article 226 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2017 (HC)

M/s. Maya Appliances Private Limited, Besant Avenue, Adyar, Chennai an ...

Court : Chennai

..... substantial than that of an ordinary purchaser, but the mere fact that the customers are sophisticated, knowledgeable and discriminating does not rule out the element of confusion if the trade marks/trade names/corporate names of two companies are identical or if the similarity between them is profound. in several cases it has been held that initial confusion is likely to arise ..... section 2(d) of the designs act, 2000, also excludes other modes. in that, a mere mechanical device in substance stands excluded specifically. similarly, a trade mark under the trade and merchandise mark act, 1958, or property mark as defined in section 479 of the indian penal code or any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the copyright act ..... john hayter's case (supra) the court failed to notice the principle that even the informed, sophisticated and knowledgeable customers suffer from initial confusion where the corporate names, trade names or trade marks of two different companies are the same or similar to each other. therefore, the view expressed in the case does not commend to me and compels me to respectfully ..... that a different type of confusion, referred to as "initial confusion," is likely to arise even among sophisticated purchasers. as one court has said: "by intentionally copying the trade mark of another more established company, one company attempts to attract potential customers based on the reputation and name built up by the first user, the older company. the danger here .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2017 (SC)

Commissioner Central Excise Vs. M/S.United Spirits Ltd. and Anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... that during the currency of the agreement, the second party (as pointed out by the tribunal) gemini distilleries (tripura) pvt. ltd. (gdpl) shall not use trade mark to or adopt any trade mark similar to any of the trade marks on or in connection with any product. on that basis, the tribunal opined that on careful reading of the agreement reveals that the assessee has good ..... control over the manufacture of imfl by gdpl and it ensures the quality of the product, which bears the trade mark of the assessee. referring to the usership agreement, the tribunal observed that the proprietor was the assessee and the user was gdpl and according to the said agreement, at the ..... and the other is usership agreement. as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the products were to be manufactured by the second party would include the products whose trade mark was owned by the assessee-appellant before the tribunal and any other associate company of it. the second party to the agreement was required to purchase blending and packing materials ..... between the royalty and the price of food flavours, it was canvassed before the tribunal that the royalty and service charges were received by the assessee for use of the trade mark and for marketing services provided by it to the contract bottling units and even though flavours were supplied to independent manufacturers, neither royalty nor service charges were received from them .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2016 (HC)

Price Water House and Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Taxxix and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

..... or persons; or (g) the manufacture or processing of goods or articles or business carried out by one enterprise is wholly dependent on the use of know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, or any data, documentation, drawing or specification relating to any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2016 (HC)

M/s. WS Retail Services Private Limited, Rep., by its Authorised Signa ...

Court : Chennai

..... one state to another. therefore, when there is a total lack of jurisdiction, as held by the hon'ble supreme court in whirlpool corporation vs. registrar of trade marks, mumbai and ors., reported in air 1999 sc 22, the writ court is entitled to intervene and quash the proceedings and any alternate remedy is not a ..... hon'ble supreme court pointed out the conditions that must be satisfied before a sale can be said to take place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce in the following terms:- 15(2) that the following conditions must be satisfied before a sale can be said to take place in the ..... have occasioned such movement; and (3) it is also not necessary for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-state movement must be specified in the contract itself. 17. it was further held that in order that a ..... was held as follows:- 15.........(1) a sale which occasions movement of goods from one state to another is a sale in the course of inter-state trade, no matter in which state the property in the goods passes; (2) it is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-state movement in ..... services under the brand name e-kart logistic to the online sellers effected via flipkart.com. the petitioner currently sells goods in the course of inter-state trade and commerce to the customers in puducherry from any one of the six warehouses in the country upon charging cst at full rate from those warehouses. 4. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2016 (HC)

M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd., Rep by its Director K. Srinivasa Rao, Mad ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... air 1988 bombay 408 (ii) in shri sitaram sugar company ltd., vs.union of india and others reported in (1990) 3 scc 223 (iii) in whirlpool corporation vs.registrar of trade marks reported in (1998) 8 scc 1 (iv) in thressiamma jacob vs.geologist department of mining and geology reported in (2013) 9 scc 725 9. per contra, learned additional advocate general .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 2016 (HC)

M/s. Asianet Communications Ltd Vs. Sun T.V. Network Limited

Court : Chennai

..... could be broadly summarised as follows: (a) loss of royalities; (b) loss of reputation and other 'intangible' losses (such as damage to commercial value of the trade mark) and (c) benefit which could have accrued to the defendants. 30. taking each in turn, i accepted the plaintiff's submissions in respect of loss of royalties. ..... 28 to 31 of the said judgement which reads as follows: i therefore, turned to cosnider the factors set out at section 31(6) of the trade marks act, in this regard, i first considered the factors of loss suffered by the plaintiff and benefit accrued to the defendants by reason of the infringement. ..... in 1991-1 lw 220 [p. thulasidas v. k. vasanthakumari], wherein it has been held as follows- 7. it is seen from the above exhibits marked and proved by p.w. 1 that the plaintiff has been all along dealing with the picture bhaga pirivinai as an absolute owner. per contra, it is ..... directly opposing and rival claims for broadcasting rights of the said film. 12. it is noticed that all the documents have been marked by consent. 13. the rival television broadcasters namely, asianet and sun t.v. have admittedly not got the broadcasting rights from the same source as ..... subsequently, asianet issued a legal notice to sun t.v.. this legal notice is dated 31.10.2000 and this legal notice, acknowledgement cards etc., are marked as ex.p13 and ex.p.14. intriguingly sun t.v. did not respond. the above scenario led to the above two suits being filed with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2016 (HC)

Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal and Others Vs. Kishore Wadhwani and Anoth ...

Court : Mumbai

..... the indore suit in this behalf. it is submitted that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in the present suit that the assignment deed dated 1 may 1986, through which the trade mark malikchand along with the goodwill was claimed to have been assigned by one prabhudayal choube to his son ashok sharma (the predecessor in interest of defendant no.2), was a ..... in manufacture and marketing of diverse range of goods such as tea, packaged drinking water, chewing tobacco, pan masala, gutkha and mouth freshners, etc. and have adopted and used the trade mark manikchand for marketing their goods including chewing tobacco since the year 1961, the name manikchand being the middle name of plaintiff no.1. (as of the date of the suit ..... concerns the identity of the matter substantially and directly in issue in the two suits. both suits obviously concern the proprietorship and prior use of the defendants herein of the trade mark malikchand . that is the foundation of the defendants' plea in the indore suit for claiming a permanent injunction against the plaintiffs herein from using a deceptively similar ..... , as originally filed, the plaintiffs' application for registration was pending before the trade mark registry. during the pendency of the suit, the trade mark is registered in the name of the plaintiffs.) the plaintiffs submit that the trade mark manikchand has, by reason of its long and extensive user by the plaintiffs, has come to be exclusively associated with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2016 (HC)

Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants and Another Vs. S.M. Subbaiah tradi ...

Court : Chennai

..... the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark 'apoorva's sangeetha' by using the offending word sangeetha either as a trade mark or part of his trading style or any other mark or marks, which are identical and similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered trademark apoorva's sangeetha. b. granting permanent injunction restraining ..... the defendants from in any manner passing off of their products bearing the offending word sangeetha either as a trade mark or part of their trading style as and for the celebrated products of the plaintiff bearing the registered trademark apoorva's sangeetha either by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale or ..... in any manner advertising the same. c. directing the defendants to surrender the name boards, entire stock of unused offending trade mark wrappers, bill books, etc. bearing the offending word sangeetha either as a trademark or part of his trading style, together with blocks and dyes for destruction. d. directing the defendants to render and true and faithful accounts of ..... to stop using the said trademark. however, in 2009, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants had started using the word sangeetha as a part of their trading style selvalakshmi sangeetha restaurant. since the word sangeetha is the essential feature of the trademark of the plaintiffs, the defendants have no right whatsoever to adopt the offending trademark .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2016 (HC)

M/s. Add Print (India) Enterprises Private Limited by its Manager, Ker ...

Court : Chennai

..... filed under order iv rule 1 of the original side rules read with order vii rule 1 of cpc read with sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the trade marks act 1999 read with section 22 of the design act, 2000.) 1. this civil suit has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the defendant:- a. granting ..... moulds, screen prints, advertisement and promotional materials, packing materials, pre inked box type rubber stamps and any other materials bearing the same design with trademark 'presto instanza' or any other mark and design deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff or any other design which is an imitation of the design of the plaintiff, besides to disclose the details of ..... any manner passing off the trademark of the plaintiff sun stamper by use of the trademark of the defendant 'presto instanza' or deceptive trade dress, design, model, size, colour scheme, getup, layout or by use of any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks or registered design. d. directing the defendant to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction ..... perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant, from in any manner, infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark 'sun stamper' by use of the trademark 'presto instanza' or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks. b. granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner infringing/pirating the plaintiff's registered design of 'box type pre .....

Tag this Judgment!


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