Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Sorted by: recent Page 7 of about 183,900 results (0.125 seconds)

Nov 16 2016 (HC)

Shriram Epc Limited Chennai Vs. Soma Enterprises Limited, Pune

Court : Chennai

..... notice by this court, namely, (1) that the composite term 'sriram epc' with the punch line 'engineering the future' has been registered by the registrar of trade marks under the trade marks act 1999 under section 137 and it had been used from 1.3.2002 and (2) that dehors the registration, the plaintiff has been using the term 'engineering ..... 2009. the plaintiff has acquired a distinct character by extensive use and reputation and goodwill in the market by use of the said trade mark. the plaintiff has also secured statutory protection by registering their trade mark under the trade marks act, 1999. consequently, the plaintiff has the exclusive rights and privileges granted under section 28 of the act to use the logo ..... the notice issued by the defendant and the plaintiff is trying to create confusion by using the phrases/punch line/slogan/expression with the words 'registered trade mark'. the defendant had not infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff. the defendant had been using the punch line/slogan 'engineering the future' in accordance with the provisions of the act and ..... siscol, salem, jinadal vidyanagar steels limited, kerala feeds limited, shalivahan construction limited, rithwick power project, ravi kiran power projects limited and sterlite copper limited. the plaintiff also displays the trade mark 'sriram epc' with the punch line/slogan 'engineering the future' in all its productions, communications and advertisements. it has also used it in its letter heads, visiting cards, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 2016 (HC)

Cadila Healthcare Limited, Rep. by Deputy General Manager (Legal) Mehu ...

Court : Chennai

..... opposed the registration of the defendant's trademark pantosky by filing an application in tm-05 as soon as the same was published by the defendant in the trade marks journal no.1446 on 16.08.2010. 10. after careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and considering the facts ..... , offering or advertising for sale any pharmaceutical preparation using the trade mark pantosky or any other name, which is in any way phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark pantodac and pass off their pharmaceutical preparation as the pharmaceutical preparation ..... or pharmaceutical preparation, in manufacturing or marketing the pharmaceutical product bearing the trademark pantosky or any other trademark, which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark no.723200 in class 05. b) permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, by themselves, their servants, agents, men or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, marketing, distributing ..... for import of the said tablets on 09.12.1998 and also permission to manufacture the active drug pantoprazole. while that being so, the defendant had infringed the trade mark pantodac of the plaintiff, as pantosky and had applied for its registration, which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. hence, the present civil suit has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2016 (HC)

Apex Laboratories Limited Vs. India Pharmaceuticals

Court : Chennai

..... the copy right registration certificate for the plaintiff's label in the category artistic work. plaintiff has also got 'zincovit' word mark registered as a trade mark. this is evident from the trade mark registration certificate, ex.p2 which is of the year 1988. a perusal of the same read in conjunction with pleadings and evidence ..... c.p.c. in other words a special right is conferred on the properties of the registered trade mark to institute a suit for infringement of any trade mark or copyright in the district within whose jurisdiction he resides or carries on business. the provisions contained in non-obstante clause by ..... or branches where the business activities are carried. 14. it is thus seen that section 62 of the copyright act and section 134 of the trade marks act prescribe an additional ground for attracting the jurisdiction of a court over and above he normal ground, as laid down in section 20 of the ..... of who is the prior user. as stated supra, plaintiff has established from ex.p2 primarily and other corroborative material that they have adopted the trade mark in 1988 and have been using the same since 1990. 8. there is no contra evidence to show that the defendant is a prior user ..... 20 of the c.p.c. or clause- 12 of the letters patent. therefore, in a case of infringement of trade mark or copyright concerned by section 134(2) of the trade mark act or section 62(2) of the copyright act, the question of plaintiff taking prior leave under clause 12 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 2016 (HC)

The Superintendent of Schools Roman Catholic Diocese of Sivagangai Via ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... taken without jurisdiction or purported to usurp the jurisdiction. in support of his contention, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the decision in whirlpool corpn. v. registrar of trade marks, reported in (1998) 8 scc 1. 6. the sixth respondent has filed a counter stating that the petitioner school is a minority institution and it is functioning under the direct ..... supervision of the correspondent of the school and he marked all the correspondences with the educational departments regarding administration of the school. that on 03.06.2009, at 11.30 a.m., when the third respondent/district collector, sivagangai district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2016 (HC)

Vinay Tilokchand Karnavat Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Se ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

..... a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute alone must be availed of." (2) (1998) 8 supreme court cases 1, whirlpool corporation vs. the registrar of trade marks, mumbai and another, wherein the it is held that: "14. the power to issue prerogative writs under article 226 of the constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2016 (SC)

Kail Ltd. Formerly Kitchen Appl.(I) Ld. Vs. State of Kerala Tr.Jt.Comm ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... last condition to be satisfied in order to attract section 5(2) of the kgst act is that the sale is by the brand name holder or trade mark holder within the state and whether the appellant-company is a holder of the brand name sansui .11) on 25.01.2000, a newspaper report was ..... company are manufactured goods other than tea. the first condition is satisfied. the next condition to be satisfied is that the sale of goods is under a trade mark or brand name. it is an undisputed fact that the manufactured goods sold by the appellant-company were home appliances under the brand name sansui . thus ..... goods.- notwithstanding anything contained in this act, in respect of manufactured goods other than tea, which are sold under a trade mark or brand name, the sale by the brand name holder or the trade mark holder within the state shall be the first sale for the purpose of the act. however, what is opposed by the ..... the act. the said sub-section speaks of a sale made by a brand name holder or the trade mark holder within the state. the legislature deems that such a sale by the brand name holder or the trade mark holder shall be the first sale within the state. in our opinion this is the only possible ..... be satisfied: (i) sale of manufactured goods other than tea; (ii) sale of the said goods is under a trade mark/brand name; and (iii) the sale is by the brand name holder or the trade mark holder within the state. if the above three conditions are satisfied, the sale by the brand name holder or the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2016 (HC)

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad and Another Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical I ...

Court : Chennai

..... appellants/defendants cannot be accepted. 11. the second limb of argument put forth on the side of the appellants/defendants is based upon section 135 of the trade marks act, 1999 and the same reads as follows: 135. relief in suits for infringement or for passing off. (1) the relief which a court may ..... as per evidence given by p.w.1, there is no cause of action for instituting the present suit and as per section 135 of the trade marks act, 1999, the plaintiff is not entitled to get both the reliefs of rendition of accounts as well as liquidated damages and even though on the ..... option of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits, together with or without any order for the delivery-up of the infringing labels and marks for destruction or erasure. a mere reading of the said section would go to show that if a suit is instituted on the basis of infringement or ..... and also specifically contended that only during august 2009, the plaintiff has come to know the sinister motive of the defendant and also marketing of similar mark venz-od and the present suit has been instituted on the same year and therefore, for instituting the present suit, definitely cause of action has been ..... 2009, the plaintiff has come to know that the defendants have started a preparation bearing the mark venz-od in which od is common to trade and it means once a day and the word venz forms the mark thereof. the defendants have made slavish imitation of the plaintiff's registered trademark veniz. the trademarks .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2016 (HC)

Petitioner Vs. Respondent

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 ..... in 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 ..... held 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 ..... paragraphs of the apex court in satyam infoway ltd., vs. sifynet solutions pvt. ltd., ((2004) 28 ptc 566) is apposite. 12. the next question is would the principles of trade mark law and in particular those relating to passing off apply? an action for passing off. as the phrase "passing off itself suggests, is to restrain the defendant from passing off .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2016 (HC)

Mohamed Jamaludin Vs. State Bank of Travancore Rep. by Branch Manager ...

Court : Chennai

..... show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in baburam prakash chandra maheshwari v. antarim zila parishad air 1969 sc 556, whirlpool corporation v. registrar of trade marks, mumbai (1998) 8 scc 1 and harbanslal sahnia and another v. indian oil corporation ltd. and others (2003) 2 scc 107 and some other judgments, then the high court may ..... show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in baburam prakash chandra maheshwari v. antarim zila parishad air 1969 sc 556, whirlpool corporation v. registrar of trade marks, mumbai (1998) 8 scc 1=1999-2-l.w. 200 and harbanslal sahnia and another v. indian oil corporation ltd. and others (2003) 2 scc 107 and some other judgments .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2016 (HC)

M/s. Titanium Tantalum Products Ltd. and Others Vs. State Bank of Indi ...

Court : Chennai

..... show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in baburam prakash chandra maheshwari v. antarim zila parishad air 1969 sc 556, whirlpool corporation v. registrar of trade marks, mumbai (1998) 8 scc 1 and harbanslal sahnia and another v. indian oil corporation ltd. and others (2003) 2 scc 107 and some other judgments, then the high court may ..... show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in baburam prakash chandra maheshwari v. antarim zila parishad air 1969 sc 556, whirlpool corporation v. registrar of trade marks, mumbai (1998) 8 scc 1=1999-2-l.w. 200 and harbanslal sahnia and another v. indian oil corporation ltd. and others (2003) 2 scc 107 and some other judgments .....

Tag this Judgment!


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