Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-19-1988
Reported in : 1989(2)ARBLR69(Delhi); 36(1988)DLT417; 1988RLR648
..... the prayer is for the grant of a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.(2) the plaintiff is admittedly the owner of the registered trade mark harrison. this trade mark is used in respect of locks manufactured by the plaintiff. the registration was .granted to the plaintiff on 27th april, 1960. the case ..... the same is manufactured by sehgal locks co. does not mean that there is no infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark. the indication of the name of the manufacturer on the goods may be a relevant circumstance in a case of passing off action but in ..... the genuine goods. the interim injunction which is granted under these circurnsfances, when there is a apparent infringement of the trade mark, not only protects the interest of the holder of the trade mark but also protect the general public, who are. more often than not, led to buy spurious goods in place of ..... of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that on unwary customer is likely to be mistaken or misled by the mark haricon as being the mark of the plaintiff.(7) the trade mark which is registered in the present case is harrison. the fact that the defendants also indicate on the lock that ..... it is manufactured by defendant no. 1.(6) under section 28 of the trade marks act, the registered proprietor of a trade mark has the exclusive right to use the trade mark in relation to the goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered. he has also the right to obtain relief in respect of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-14-1988
Reported in : 34(1988)DLT227
..... important to note is that the defendants have, prior to the advertisement of the application of the plaintiff for registration, themselves applied in january, 1982 for registration of the said trade mark for manufacture of rounded tooth picks. it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that the registrar can, by invoking the provisions of section 12(3) of the ..... started manufacturing rounded tooth picks only in the year 1987. the further allegation of the defendants is that the defendants have also applied for the grant of registration of the trade mark crown in respect of rounded tooth picks. this application was made in january, 1982. according to the defendants, they have also taken steps for the rectification of the register by ..... trade marks act, grant registration of more than one proprietor of a trade mark which is identical in case of honest concurrent use or for any other special circumstance prima facie, it appears to me that in the present ..... this registration was granted in 1986 with effect from 10th september, 1980 it is further alleged that the plaintiff has been using the trade mark crown since january, 1980 according to the plaintiff, the defendants have started using the trade mark crown in respect of tooth picks on or after december, 1980,t the plaintiff, thereforee, prays that as it is the proprietor of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-19-1988
Reported in : AIR1988Delhi282; 1988(1)ARBLR150(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT235; 1988(15)DRJ47
..... . watkins mayor and co. decided on 13th april, 1983. in that case also, an injunction was sought for restraining the registered holder of the trade mark from using the trade mark. it was alleged that the trade mark which was being used by the defendants was similar to that of the plaintiffs. furthermore, the plaintiff therein had also moved a petition in the high ..... centrifugal pumps since the year 1973. in the application under order 39, rule 4 being is 6624/86 it is further contended that the defendants the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'field marshal' in respect of the flour mills, circulating and centrifugal pumps, couplings for machines, pulleys and valves (parts of machines). along with this application a copy of ..... as pumps and electric motors under the trade mark 'field marshal'. it is alleged in the plaint that since the year 1963 the plaintiff company has been carrying on the business of manufacturing, marketing and exporting of ..... from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in diesel oil engines and parts thereof, electric motors, agricultural pumps or centrifugal pumps or parts thereof bearing the trade mark 'field marshal' or any other similar or identical trade mark. there is also a prayer for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents etc. from passing off diesel oil engines and parts thereof such .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-19-1988
Reported in : (1990)1MLJ119
..... a use by a person other than the proprietor for the purpose of section 46. the result of that is that if a registered user has used the trade mark the ground for removing the trade mark from register on the ground of non-use ceases to be available. it is an advantage given to a proprietor but only in case of permitted use ..... follows: the 1st and 2nd respondents submit that the plaintiffs giving no objection to central excise department have allowed match factories for producing and marketing matches to use the petitioners' trade mark and they have not been impleaded in this application and the petitioners have suppressed the material facts and for the very same reason the above petition has to be dismissed ..... were still doing extensive business. according to the plaint, the plaintiffs had placed orders with the third defendant for manufacture and supply of safety matches without any right in the trade mark of the plaintiffs and accordingly, the third defendant was supplying safety matches to the plaintiffs for some time and as he was not maintaining the quality and standard, the plaintiffs ..... respondent herein is the proprietor of the second respondent concern. the respondents filed the suit referred to above for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from in any manner infringing their trade mark 'national park' together with the device of a 'standing stag' and the colour scheme and get up by using the offending 'running deer' together with the device of 'standing stag .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-21-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Delhi77; 35(1988)DLT64; 1988RLR340
..... servants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, directly or indirectly, dealing in or using in relation to edible oils, the trade mark 'shapola' or any other trade mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'saffola'.(20) i. a. nos. 177/88 and 1298/88 are allowed and i.a. no. 416/88 is ..... may be made to the decision of the supreme court in the case of amritdhara pharmacy v. satya deo gupta : 2scr484 was concerned with the two trade marks, namely, 'amritdhara' and 'lakshmandhara'. the supreme court while following the ratio of its earlier decision in the case of corn products refining co. (supra) ..... defendant further states that it has incurred a lot of advertisement expenditure during the period of march to december 1987 and further sold sunflower oil under the trade mark 'shapola' to the tune of rs. 70,000 per month. giving justification for the prefix 'shap', it is the case of the defendant that ..... the letters 'f' and 'p' carry a similar sound.(4) a notice dated 25th april 1987 was sent by the trade mark attorney of the plaintiff alleging that the trade mark of the plaintiff had been infringed. by a letter dated 25th may 1987 the aforesaid notice was replied to and it was ..... and lower parts of the tin.the allegation of the plaintiff is that in or about april 1987 it learnt that the defendant had adopted a trade mark(3) shapola' in respect of edible oil manufactured by it. it is also alleged that this oil is also being marketed in a similar .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-13-1988
Reported in : AIR1988Delhi393; 1988(2)ARBLR246(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT352; 1988RLR450
..... contention i.e. : 1scr290 . there-is no quarrel about the propositions of law decided in those authorities. in the matter of infringement of trade mark the decided cases are useful only so far as they lay down the principles of law. each case has to be decided on its own facts. ..... in the written statement, it has been further stated in the replies that there is no question of any loss to the plaintiff as the two trade marks and cartons 'tiger flore' and 'camlin flora' are absolutely different and distinct. there is no scope of any confusion or deception. the plaintiff has ..... that are identical to and/or deceptively similar with the plaintiff's flora pencils and cartons. the defendants have also adopted a deceptively similar mark flore to the trade mark flora of the plaintiff in relation to three said pencils. the defendant's pencils comprise of colour combination of green, pink and white. ..... infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the said artistic work. the plaintiff also claims to have got copyright in the artistic logo script of the trade mark flora as the same is an original artistic work. (3) the defendants who arc alleged to be carrying on the business of manufacturing and ..... white and green next to each other respectively. the floral design comprises of array of pink flowers with green leaf each on white background the trade mark camlin flora of the plaintiff appears on the rear portion of the pencil. each flower has got a characteristic look about it and the arrangement .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-13-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Delhi157; 1989(16)DRJ72
..... the defendant if the order of restraint is not passed against it. the defendant being at almost threshold of the start of its business under the impugned trade mark can develop and popularise some other trade mark. considering the totality of the circumstances, in my opinion, the balance clearly tilts in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (10) by 1.a ..... . 1989/88 the defendant seeks restraint against the plaintiff from giving threats to the defendant, its customer and dealers indicating that an action or proceedings for infringement of the trade mark 'fevicol' shall be filed against them. the application is totally misconceived. the plaintiff has a right to have recourse to legal proceedings to vindicate its rights. it cannot ..... subsequently released on superdari. by filing the said criminal complaint defendant has been put to notice by the plaintiff that their trademark 'trevicol' constituted infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark fevicol. the plaintiff says that since the defendant did not desist from their infringing activity inspire of the filing of the said complaint, it was forced to tile the ..... also claims to have a copyright registration of the entire get up of the tin container. it is further claimed that the plaintiff and .their purchasers have extensively used the trade mark 'fevicol' which has acquired an enviable reputation in the market. the name 'fevicol' has become a household word in relation to synthetic resin adhesives and other allied products. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-21-1988
Reported in : 35(1988)DLT202
..... ) by this suit the plaintiff claims perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in thermos jug under the trade mark rahber or any other trade mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade mark rabber. the allegations of the to plaintiff for claiming the perpetual injunction as laid down in the plaint are as follows :- ( ..... the defendant. the pleas taken in the written statement are that the plaintiffs are neither the proprietors nor the registered proprietors of the trade mark rabber/ rahber in respect of thermos judge as alleged by them. the trade mark rahber is registered in the name of plasticrafters limited, 3rd floor,prmier insurance building, wallace road, karachi under registration no. 365902- ..... had started manufacturing and selling thermos jug under the trade mark rahber which is identical to the trade mark rahber of the plaintiff and is also deceptively similar to the trade mark rabber of the plaintiff. the defendant is passing off the thermos jug manufactured by him under the trade mark rahber as that of the trade mark of the plaintiff. this wrongful act of the ..... got registered the copyright in the artistic label of rabber. the distinctive features of the trade mark are that the letters of the trade mark rabber have been put in the manner of semicircle. it is further alleged that the plaintiff is also using the trade mark rahber written in the same manner as rabber in respect of the same goods since .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-29-1988
Reported in : 1989(20)ECC93; 1989(24)LC574(Madras); 1989(39)ELT383(Mad)
..... the preceding financial year.' as per the above explanation, the manufacture and sale must be with the 'same' trade mark or brand name and not with 'similar' trade mark or brand name. the use of the same trade mark is different from the use of similar trade mark. the former denotes the very same thing, the exact replica, while the latter denotes likeness in all essential features ..... is not there. his decision is based on a patent misconstruction of the aforesaid explanations. it follows that the petitioners, who are manufacturing and selling aerated waters under different trade marks or brand names and the value of whose individual clearance of aerated waters does not exceed rs. seven and a half lakhs are entitled to the benefit of the exemption ..... so as to cause confusion. if the intention of the authorities issuing the notification were to include similar trade mark or brand name, they would have added the words 'or similar' after the word 'same' in clause (ii) above. from the fact that the petitioners are manufacturing and selling ..... bottles legibly. the collector of central excise therefore, concluded that the brand names were deceptively similar to each other. as the products of the six units are marketed under common trade mark or brand name, the petitioners are not entitled for separate exemption under notification no. 148/82, dated 22.4.1982. he accordingly imposed the duty and penalty as stated .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-27-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Mad182; (1988)IIMLJ516
..... or is not the registered proprietor or the registered user of the trade mark, bring a suit against the first-mentioned person and may obtain a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable, and an injunction against the continuance of the threats ..... (1) of the act, which reads as under -'where a person, by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens a person with an action or proceeding for infringement of a trade mark which is registered, or alleged by the first mentioned person to be registered, or with some other like proceeding, a person aggrieved may, whether the person making the threats is ..... reliefs. appn no. 4971 of 1986 was to grant an injunction restraining the appellants before us from claiming any exclusive right with respect of the trade mark 'exxon' in respect of the goods specified in respondent's trade mark appln. dated 25-11-1986 for packing machines and for spare parts for such machineries pending disposal of the suit. appln. no. 4972 of 1986 ..... not intended to prevent a person from instituting a suit alleging passing off. as as matter of fact, the respondent-plaintiff has not filed an application for registration of the trade mark exxon in respect of packing machines and for spare parts for such machines and had made a false statement to mislead the court. the appellant through their .....Tag this Judgment!