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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!