Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Year: 1996 Page 1 of about 3,250 results (0.083 seconds)

Jul 09 1996 (SC)

Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishandas Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-09-1996

Reported in : AIR1996SC2275; 1996(2)ARBLR222(SC); JT1996(6)SC366; 1996(5)SCALE267; (1997)4SCC201; [1996]Supp3SCR329

..... to the cigarettes bearing the said brand name falling under class 34 of the 4th schedule of the trade mark rules framed under the trade marks act 1940. the schedule in trade marks rules 1942 continues verbatim as the 4th schedule of trade marks rules framed under the trade marks act. the trade mark 'charminar' is not defensive registration. the word 'charminar' is not an invented word which is the condition precedent ..... concept or appellation of a class or a genus of goods. in this connection, the court's attention was drawn by mr. ganesh to the definitions relating to certification trade mark,' false trade description', 'trade marks' appearing in section 2. sub-section (1) clauses (c), (f), (g), (i), (m), (u) & (v) and section 2, sub-section (2) clause (b).16. mr. ganesh has contended that ..... schedule of the rules. in our view, the contention of mr. vaidyanathan that in view of change in the language of section 8 of trade marks act as compared to section 5 of trade marks act 1940, registration of trade mark is to be made only in respect of class or genus and not in respect of articles of different species under the genus is based ..... made of india-rubber, then the intention of the act of 1883 and that of 1905 is that there shall be a veto in respect of registering an identical trade mark, or a similar trade mark in respect of goods falling within the description, as distinguished from the class. section 19 is perfectly capable of being read, as is, i think, to be read .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1996 (SC)

Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. T. I. Raleigh Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-10-1996

Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)674; AIR1996SC3295; 1996(2)ARBLR5(SC); JT1996(5)SC145; (1996)2MLJ123(SC); 1996(4)SCALE528; (1996)9SCC430; [1996]Supp2SCR820

..... heard learned counsel on both sides.3. the admitted facts are that the respondents through their agents bad registered trade mark 'releigh' and other trade marks (12 marks) under the indian merchandise marks act, 1889 (4 of 1989) and the trade marks act, 1940 (5 of 1940). the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 (43 of 1958) (for short, the 'act) which came into force with effect from october ..... whether the discretion has been properly exercised by both the division bench as well as the single judge in refusing to take off the trade mark from the register by striking off trade mark from the register of the registrar of trade marks?17. it is true that while exercising discretion, the court under section 46 of the act should take into consideration not only commercial ..... application for registration as such shall be entertained unless the agreement between the parties complies with the conditions laid down in the rules for preventing trafficking in trade marks.(2) the permitted use of a trade mark shall be deemed to be use by the proprietor thereof, and shall be deemed not to be used by a person other than the proprietor, for ..... further contended that the special circumstances enumerated in sub-section (3) of section 46 must be such that the respondents had intended to use the registered trade mark. for over a long period, the trade mark was not used by the respondents as its registered proprietor. the respondents did not prove that they were prevented from using the same for 5 years or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1996 (HC)

induss Food Products and Equipments Ltd. Vs. Rani Sati Ice Cream Pvt. ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-01-1996

Reported in : 65(1997)DLT802

..... in n.r. dongre & others vs. whirlpool corporation & another (fao (os) 262/94) dated 21.4.1995. that was a case where the plaintiff was using the trade mark from 1941 (and registered a trade mark but was not renewed after 1977) and the defendant applied for registration and the plaintiff opposed the same (and the matter is pending in an appeal by the ..... bill.' (8) the plaintiff has filed replication repudiating the claim of the defendant. (9) the learned counsel for the plaintiff mr.k.r. gupta submitted that the trade mark frolic is deceptively similar to the trade mark rollick of the plaintiff, and taking advantage of the franchise eagreement in bihar the defendant had started the business and relied upon the decision of this court ..... an injunction - '(i)restrain the defendants, their directors, servants an agents, from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale, ice-cream under the trade mark frolic or any other mark as may be deceptively similar to the trade mark rollick of the plaintiff and passing off of the ice- cream of the defendants as and for that of the plaintiff; (ii)restrain the defendants ..... belongs to that family; the company and the directors knew of the franchise agreement with the plaintiff, that lowing fully well, the defendants have adopted the trade mark frolic which is deceptively similar to the trade mark rollick for selling the ice-cream. accord- ing to the plaintiff, the important features in the device adopted by the defendant are identical to that of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 1996 (HC)

Synthes Ag Chur Vs. Rob Mathys India (P) Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-01-1996

Reported in : 1996(38)DRJ51

..... :- 'the plaintiff no. i has licensed the exclusive rights to the use of the synthes technology including its trade secrets, patents, trade marks, trade names, logos and symbols to the plaintiff no. 2 for the territory of india. apart from the relationship of licensor and licensee, the plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff ..... selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in goods being instruments for bone surgery and orthopedic implants under the trade mark 'synthes' or any other mark similar to the trade mark of the plaintiffs amounting to infringement of the trade mark or from doing any other thing as may be likely to cause confusion, deception and may amount to passing off of the ..... the years. in the circumstances, the plaintiffs were left with no option but to revoke all agreements with the defendant including the defendants right to use the plaintiffs trade marks and trade names in relation to their products. this the plaintiff did through its letter dated 24th june, 1992 and stated that the plaintiff was willing to acquire all existing ..... in osteosynthesis. the aforesaid registrations have been renewed and being part a registrations, more than 7 years old are conclusively valid under the provisions of section 32 of the trade marks and merchandise marks act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').'in paragraph 7 it is mentioned as to how the second plaintiff acquired the rights. para 7 reads as under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1996 (HC)

Jandp Coats Ltd. Vs. Popular Thread Mills

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-04-1996

Reported in : 1996VAD(Delhi)436; 1997(1)ARBLR97(Delhi); 1996(39)DRJ686

..... is sufficient whereas as in the latter the defendant could show that there are certain additions or other deviations from the plaintiffs' trade mark which differentiate his trade mark and goods from those of the plaintiff. it may be that we have to consider the case from the point of view ..... dunedin after staling that 'a person of such literacy as to have critical powers of observation would not be confused with the defendant's trade mark' proceeds to observe that the trade mark 'would be apt to be confused by the illiterate. (29) in payton & co. v. spinning lamard & co. (1899) ..... continued : 'the considerations relevant in a passing off action are somewhat different than they are on an application made for registration of a mark under the trade marks act and that being so, the decision of the madras high court could not be considered, relevant on the questions that the registrar had ..... distinguishing characteristics of the plaintiff's goods and whether a person exercising ordinary caution is likely to be deceived. (31) in pol-rama trade mark v. registrar (1977) rpc 581, that the application of petitioners for registration of pol-rama sunglasses could not be validly opposed by a ..... : j&p; coats ltd. v. chada & co. : air1967delhi141 : khemraj v. garg & co. : air1975delhi130 : (17) in 'intellectual property : (patents, copyright, trade marks & allied rights) (2nd ed) by w.r. cornish (1993) cle 404 : 'in the normal case of passing off, the plaintiff has to prove a reputation sufficient for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1996 (HC)

A. Srinath and Others Vs. the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-17-1996

Reported in : AIR1996AP309; 1996(2)ALT893; (1997)ILLJ255AP

..... judgment of shah, j. under clause 15 of the letters patent.' the supreme court while overruling the judgment of the calcutta high court in india electric works v. registrar of trade marks, air 1947 cal 49, observed: 'on the line of thought adopted in the calcutta decision the learned judges were forced to the conclusion which seems somewhat strange that the jurisdiction ..... the letters patent could not therefore be taken as relating to these provisions, and that being so, the high court had no power to make rules in 1940 when the trade marks act was enacted under the repealed section and the decision of the mr. justice shah therefore could not be said to have been given pursuant to section 108. this objection .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 1996 (HC)

Super Candles and anr. Vs. Mahabir Candle Works and anr.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jun-12-1996

..... (amritdhara pharmacy v. satya deo gupta). that was a case where two words were used in 'lakshmandhara' and the other is 'amritdhara' 'lakshmandhara' was not a registered trade mark but 'amritdhara' was registered trade mark and the supreme court pointed in paragraph 7 as follows: '(7) it will be noticed that the words used in the sections and relevant for our purpose are ..... he fails. as stated earlier, in the instant case there is nothing distinctive or peculiar about respondent's trade mark, many such trade marks are in use in the market. since the features of the appellant's trade mark are common to the trade, no exclusive right over the trade mark can be claimed by the respondent. (g) no trader by adopting and using a particular style of ..... the defendants their servants, agents, atterneys etc. from manufacturing selling and/or offering for sale directly or indirectly dealing in candles under the trade mark prince fighter or any other trade mark as may be deceptively similar to the trade mark rocket & device of the rocket and particular get up and passing of the candles of the defendants as and for that of the plaintiffs ..... this period started selling extensively in the north east. on 8th of january, 1996, the appellant also filed an application in the office of the registrar of trade mark for registration of appellant's trade mark and the provisional number on the same was allotted. in the instant case the respondent has given no eason for its delay in bringing the suit. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 1996 (SC)

M/S. Bengal Waterproof Limited Vs. M/S. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturin ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-18-1996

Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)6; AIR1997SC1398; 1997(2)BLJR1728; JT1996(10)SC822; 1996(8)SCALE369; (1997)1SCC99; [1996]Supp8SCR695; 1997(1)LC267(SC)

..... tortious act or deceit is committed by the defendant the plaintiff gets a fresh cause of action to come to the court by appropriate proceedings. similarly infringement of a registered trade mark would also be a continuing wrong so long as infringement continues. therefore, whether the earlier infringement has continued or a new infringement has taken place cause of action for filing ..... the same cause of action on which the earlier suit was based. the cause of action for filing this present second suit is the continuous and recurring infringement of plaintiffs trade mark by the defendants continuously till the filing of the present second suit. we asked the learned counsel for the defendants as to whether pending the suit and at present also ..... off of plaintiffs goods as the goods of the defendants. the plaintiff was, therefore, advised to sue the defendants under in the city civil court, hyderabad for infringement of registered trade mark 'duck back' and it prayed, inter alia, for permanent injunction on that basis. the learned trial judge in that suit being original suit no. 238 of 1980 which will ..... a good reputation in the indian market for waterproof goods and rubberised waterproof raincoats. it is the further case of the plaintiff that it markets its products under the registered trade mark 'duck back' throughout the country and its product has obtained good reputation and popularity amongst the consumers as 'dack back' raincoats. the plaintiff further alleges that it came to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1996 (SC)

N.R. Dongre and ors. Vs. Whirlpool Corpn. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-30-1996

Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)710; 1996(2)ARBLR488(SC); JT1996(7)SC555; 1996(6)SCALE276; (1996)5SCC714; [1996]Supp5SCR369

..... defendants, their partners, trustees, agents, representatives and assignees are hereby restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising or in any way using the trade mark 'whirlpool' or any other trade mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the trade mark whirlpool in respect of their goods. the plaintiffs shall within 4 weeks from today place on record an undertaking in the place on ..... passing off action brought by the plaintiff-respondents to restrain the defendant appellants from manufacturing selling, advertising or in any way using the trade mark 'whirlpool' in any other trade mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the trade mark of 'whirlpool' in respect of their goods. the subject matter of this appeal is the manufacture, sale and advertisement of washing ..... plaintiff no. 1 formed a joint venture with the plaintiff no. 2. on 15.7.1988 applications were moved by the plaintiffs with the registrar of trade marks for registration of the trade mark 'whirlpool' for certain goods including washing machines. the washing machines are being marketed by plaintiff no. 2 in india under the tvs brand using the ..... the products have been advertised in magazines having international circulation including in india. xxx xxx xxxas already noticed plaintiff no. 1 was a registered proprietor of the trade mark whirlpool in india until 1977. without expressing any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the reasons assigned by the plaintiffs for non renewal of the registration thereafter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1996 (HC)

Jai Prakash Gupta Vs. Vishal Aluminium Manufacturing Co.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-30-1996

Reported in : 1996(39)DRJ46; (1996)114PLR59

..... to the defendant and the defendant cannot be permitted to make use of the reputation and goodwill, which the plaintiff has earned by establishing his trade mark or the mark which is deceptively similar with the plaintiff trade mark. such a view, as was taken in coolways india's case (supra) was also the view taken in an earlier, decision of this ..... restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, representatives, distributors and dealers and all other persons on their behalf from selling the pressure cookers (non-electric) under the trade mark vishal king and/or other trade mark containing the word 'vishal' till final disposal of the suit. 2. after summons were issued and notice in the application was sent, the defendant put in appearance ..... fraud is unnecessary in a passing off action whether the relief asked for is injunction alone or injunction, accounts and damages. if there is a likelihood of the offending trade mark invading the proprietary right, a case for injunction is made out, for which proposition century traders' decision placed reliance upon another. division bench decision of this court in ..... of the defendant, the defendant has earned undue profits by committing the tort of passing off and also by representing the trade mark vishal king as registered trade mark. because of the unauthorised use of the identical and/or deceptively trade mark by the defendant as that of the plaintiff, there is every likelihood that the purchasers or intending purchasers will be misled .....

Tag this Judgment!

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