Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-05-2002
Reported in : (2003)1MLJ246
..... . 16. on the basis of the above arguments, the issues arise for consideration in these appeals are:(1)whether the respondents are using the trade marks, offending the registered trade marks of the appellant?(2)whether the registration of the trade mark during the pendency of the appeal can be taken into consideration to mould the relief?(3)to what other relief the parties are entitled ..... not the basis to decide the question of infringement as the same is not the rule of comparison to find out the deceptive resemblance of the offending trade mark. 19. if we compare the trade mark of the appellant with that of the respondents, following the principles of rule of comparison, as laid down by the apex court referred to above, we have no ..... the learned judge had adopted the rule of comparison to find out the degree of dissimilarity and came to the conclusion that there are differences between the trade mark of the appellant and the offending trade mark of the respondents and as such those dissimilarities would enable the purchaser of the commodity to identity the goods of the appellant as well as the respondents ..... the appellant filed c.m.p.11819, 11821 and 11924 of 1997 for amendment of the plaint seeking the appropriate relief of injunction restraining the respondents from using the offending trade marks, apart from the original relief of passing of.5. the appellant is the registered partnership firm, having its factory at hyderabad and is engaged in manufacturing of ammonium chloride .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-05-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR431; 2002(3)MhLJ744
..... have proved its prima facie case inthis regard. moreover, the principle of balance ofconvenience also tilts in favour of the plaintiff.the defendants have adopted the trade mark and thattoo with the full knowledge of the plaintiffs trademark. in infringement action the question ofbalance of convenience cannot outweigh thesafeguards required to be provided by grantinginjunction ..... court isprima facie satisfied that the plaintiffsregistration of the trade mark is prima facieinvalid, no injunction should be granted. i maynote that, in this regard it is settled legalposition so far as this court is concerned to ..... theapplication for interim relief, the court is boundto take into consideration the pendency of theapplication for rectification. secondly, in view ofsections 28 and 111 of the trade marks act, thecourt is not debarred from granting interim reliefswhich necessarily mentions that the court must takeinto consideration the merits of the defendantsapplication for rectification and if the ..... various contentions supported by variousrulings which i have carefully gone through. it ispointed out on behalf of the defendants that theapplication for rectification made by them againstthe trade mark of the plaintiffs is pending and,therefore, no inter-locutory order by way ofinjunction may be passed or in the alternative suitmay be stayed pending the application .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-26-2002
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR589; 2003(26)PTC208(Bom)
..... situation.30. mr. chitnis, the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the defendants, submitted that theplaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction asthe defendants had used the trade mark for almostten years before the plaintiff filed the presentsuit.mr. chitnis, submitted that the fact ofincorporation itself constitutes a use of thewords pizza hut. counsel addressed me ..... distinctive of and areexclusively associated with the plaintiffs. thereis nothing brought to my notice which indicatesthe contrary.26. it is obvious that any one would connectthe trade mark pizza hut and pizza hut logo withthe plaintiffs. the plaintiffs are more thanjustified in believing that if any one came acrossthe defendants corporate name either on ..... .21. mr. r. chitnis, the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the defendant stated that thedefendant would apply for rectification of theregister to have the registration of theplaintiffs trade marks cancelled. be that as itmay, the same does not prevent this court fromconsidering an application for interlocutoryreliefs (see : air1993bom237 (41).22. dr. tulzapurkar further submitted ..... fruits, vegetables, spices,pickles, confectionery, sweet meat, jams,jelly and other food, agro products ofevery description whether for human,animal or poultry or piggeryconsumption'.4. the trade mark pizza hut, written in itsdistinctive style/lettering with the word hutbelow the word pizza and a hat above and coveringthe words, is registered under registrationno.483960-b under .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-21-2002
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)161; 98(2002)DLT430
..... goods of a particular manufacturer he is entitled to restrain others from using them as to deceive purchasers.(iii) j.l. mehta v. registrar of trade marks : air1962bom82 . the trade mark in question was 'sulekha' having the meaning a woman having 'good writing' was though descriptive but since it was being used in connection with ..... real controversy between the parties.10. in support of the contention that if the coined word even if it has dictionary meaning provides distinctive mark or trade mark and the person who has coined it or has been in continuous prior user has a right to protect it, mr. nayar has placed ..... a written judgment.'13. main plank of the contention of ms. singh is that initial onus is upon the plaintiff to show that the trade mark adopted by it is exclusively appropriable and in case plaintiff succeeds only then plausibility of the explanationn of the defendant is taken into consideration and ..... the provisions of the tmm act which is a special enactment and was made for the purpose of governing disputes relating to names, titles or trade marks. this conclusion emanates from the comparison of the object of the aforesaid two acts. the preamble of prb act shows that it was made ..... damages as to its name, reputation and goodwill and business and is likely to suffer further damages unless the defendants are injuncted from using the trade mark/name of the magazine 'aaj tak' in respect of their magazine or newspaper or periodicals as it amounts to 'passing off'.4. as against .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-20-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2439; 2002(2)WLC740; 2002(5)WLN153
..... the provisions of sees. 78 & 79 of the act of 1958, as under-'78. penalty for applying false trade marks trade descriptions, etc. any person who-(a) falsifies any trade mark; or (b) falsely applies to goods any trade marks or (c) makes, disposes of, or has in his possession, any die, block, machine, plate or ..... an offence against this section, he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to suspect the genuineness of the trade mark or trade description or that the offence had been committed in respect of the goods; and (b) that, on demand by or on behalf of the ..... the police officer before making any search and seizure shall obtain the opinion of the registrar on the facts involved in the offence relating to trade mark and shall abide by the opinion so obtained.'8. in my view, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as above ..... given or done under the corresponding provisions of this act.(3) the provisions of this act shall apply to any application for registration of a trade mark pending at the commencement of this act and to any proceedings consequent thereon and to any registration granted in pursuance thereof.(4) subject to the ..... . even otherwise also, the provisions of sections 78 & 79 of the act of 1958 stands repealed with the introduction of the new section 159 of trade marks act, 1999. in order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, i would like to quote hereinbelow the relevant contents of the same, asunder:-159. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-01-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC1626; 2002(1)ARBLR691(SC); JT2002(3)SC442; (2002)2PLR225; 2002(3)SCALE248; (2002)4SCC447; 2SCR847
..... the case of national sewing thread co. ltd. (supra) it was held that where a provision for appeal was made under section 76(1) of the trade marks act to the high court, with nothing more, the other provisions relating to exercise of that jurisdiction by the high court would be applicable. the case ..... exercised by a single judge, his judgment becomes subject to appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent there being nothing to the contrary in the trade marks act' 15. in view of what has been held above a court while exercising power by virtue of section 41 of the arbitration act shall ..... the principle enunciated therein is one of general application and has an apposite application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. section 76 the trade marks act confers a right of appeal to the high court and says nothing more about it. that being so, the high court being seized at such ..... against which a letters patent appeal was filed which was held to be maintainable even though no such provision of further appeal was made under the trade marks act. as indicated earlier the court in the above-noted case has relied upon certain decision and held as follows: 'though the facts of the ..... sewing thread company limited versus james chadwick & bros ltd. it is a decision by a three judge bench. in this case the proceedings related to the trade marks act containing a provision of appeal to the high court under section 76(1) of the act against an order of the registrar. it however contained no .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-03-2002
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT677
ordero.p. dwivedi, j.1. this is a petition under section 482, cr. p.c. for quashing of criminal complaint case no. 724/2000 and proceedings there under entitled ge motors india ltd. v. unknown persons, pending in the court of sh. s.s. rathi, metropolitan magistrate, delhi.2. on a complaint filed by petitioner no. 1, search warrant had been issued. on the basis of searches, investigation was done and charge-sheet had been filed. the learned m.m. had vide order dated 17.2.2001 taken cognizance under section 63 of the copyright act besides sections 77, 78, 79, trade marks act and sections 468, 471, 420, 485, 486, ipc. in terms of the compromise between petitioner nos. 1,2 and 3, the disputes stand settled and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had given undertaking to petitioner no. 1. petition is duly supported by the affidavits of the parties who are present and their statements have been recorded separately.3 in view of above, i am of the view, that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the above complaint and proceedings to continue. accordingly, petition is allowed and cc no. 724/2000 and proceedings there under are quashed.crl. m.m. 2672/2002 stands disposed of. dusty.Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-18-2002
Reported in : 2003(27)PTC322(Mad); 141STC277(Mad)
..... were sold, but it has relevance to the places, encloses or annexes, in which goods were sold or exposed for sale and it has relation to the goods using a trade mark or trade description in any sign, advertisement, invoice, catalogue, business letter, business paper, price list or other commercial document, etc. the special tribunal was of the view that the ..... 1984-85 and 1985-86, the petitioner marketed its products both under the registered trade mark and without inscription of the registered trade mark on the packages. there is no dispute that the petitioner sold some of its products during the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86 without inscription ..... however, rejected submission of the petitioner and levied sales tax at the rate of 10% without making any distinction between the goods sold with the trade mark and the goods sold without the inscription of trade mark, 'aavin'. the appellate assistant commissioner, the sales tax appellate tribunal and the tamil nadu taxation special tribunal confirmed the order of the commercial tax ..... government of tamil nadu undertaking engaged in the business of vending milk and selling milk products. the petitioner has a registered trade mark known as, 'aavin' registered under the trade and merchandise marks act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the trade marks act'). it is the case of the petitioner that during the course of its business during the assessment years 1983-84, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-09-2002
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT678
..... the unauthorised use.19. let us examine the case of the plaintiff on the touchstone of aforesaid principles and theories governing grant or refusal of injunction against the use of trade mark which has been in prior and long use and has established transborder reputation, goodwill and strength.20. plaintiff's trademarks caterpillar and cat are registered in 175 countries all over ..... nor special. these words belong to genus. generic name is name of genus which names the species. such words are neither brand names nor have any protection by a registered trade mark. the words which are directly descriptive or quality of goods belong to second category. such words are adjective expressing quality or attribute of an article or goods. these are neither ..... of local commissioner which shows discovery of infringing goods, dyes etc. in the possession of the defendants.9. there are two propositions that crop up for determination. firstly whether the trade marks cat and caterpillar which are the names of the animals can be monopolised by any person and secondly whether the plaintiff is required to prove and show the user of ..... carrying on their business at non-descript place viz. ballimaran, chandni chowk, delhi.3. admittedly the plaintiff has till date not got its trademark and logo registered either under the trade mark & merchandise act or copy right act of india in respect of footwears though there are copy right registrations in respect of goods other than foot wears.4. it is averred .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-15-2002
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)68; 96(2002)DLT813; 2002(25)PTC213(Del)
..... . 2. the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of wide range of electrical appliances & electrical accessories and fittings. the plaintiff adopted the trade mark polo label on 1st day of april, 1991 in relation to electrical appliances, electrical accessories, & sittings and has been continuously using the same since then up ..... of evidence and has proved the following documents:- 6 (i) exhibits p-1 to p-5 are the different labels of the plaintiff under the trade mark polo; (ii) exhibits p-6 & p-7 are the price list of the defendant: (iii) exhibit p-8 is the original sale bill of the ..... over the years and that too by expending huge sum on advertisements. even if a person is not the registered owner of the trade mark but is a prior and long user and has been using it for substantive long time, ti acquires ownership thereof. any person adopting such a ..... trade mark commits offence of passing off. such an act is also actionable. 10. as a consequence, suit is decreed in terms of para 16( ..... been practically distribute din major parts of the country. in order to acquire the statutory rights for the said trade mark, the plaintiff filed as many as thre applications as referred in para 5 of the plaint. trade mark polo under no. 554949-b in class-11 in relation to fans, refrigerators, coolers, airconditionsers, geysers toasters, .....Tag this Judgment!