Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2007
Reported in : 2008(36)PTC520(Del)
..... circumstances of the assignment alleged by the petitioner, in its favor, of the trade mark in 2004 and two whether notice under section 25 was issued and if so to whom at the relevant time. these can be better considered ..... been impugned, are appealable to the appellate board., in terms of section 91. the appellate board has been established under section 83 of the trade marks act, 1999.12. i am of the opinion that at least two important aspects involve examination into facts i.e. the nature and surrounding ..... had been issued.10. now the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, particularly in polson's case is undoubtedly suggestive of an understanding that trade-marks can be renewed despite lapse of the period. this understanding was based upon an appreciation of the law expounded in kerly's treatise on trademarks ..... the renewal is sought after expiry of the period. it was urged that the court held that there is no restriction placed in the renewal of trade mark retrospectively and that the provisions of the statute were not mandatory. similarly, the judgment of madras high court reported as abdul karim sahib & sons. ..... to issue and serve notice in the prescribed manner to the registered proprietor about the date of expiration. to enable renewal of registration of the trade mark without due compliance with such requirement, the use of power under section 25(4) and submitted that even after removal the registrar had the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-12-2007
Reported in : LC2007(3)409; 2008(36)PTC315(Mad)
..... same the learned judge has referred to several english decisions like champagne case, sherry case, scotch whisky case and advacaat case and several passages from kerly's law of trade marks and trade names and deduced the following principle viz., the question whether one name is likely to cause confusion with another is a matter upon which the judge must make up ..... for registration of the trademark peter scot; no opposition or objection has been taken from 1968 until 1986 by which time, the appellants has established a reputation for the trade name and trade mark; 'peter scot' had found acceptance from customers not only in india but throughout the world; the figures from the year 1968 up to date would show the extent ..... the operation of section 56 of the act. the rights created under the trips agreement or under the geographical indication act are in addition to the provisions of the trade marks act of trips requires member states to make provisions for protecting geographical indications and make provisions for preventing the acts resulting in unfair competition.15. we have carefully considered ..... rectification and also 20 third party affidavits have been filed as evidence. but the appellant herein did not file any evidence in support of registration.5. the deputy registrar of trade marks, the third respondent herein framed the following five issues;(1) whether the applicants are 'persons aggrieved' under section 56;(2) whether the application for rectification is not maintainable .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-15-2007
Reported in : LC2007(2)1; 2007(34)PTC469(Del)
..... thereforee, the learned single judge was justified in not staying the suit. in this connection, reference may be made to the provisions of section 124(5) of the trade marks act, which entitles the court to deal with the interlocutory application. thereforee, the submission of the counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs in this regard, is misconceived and cannot ..... filed before the appellate board for intellectual property for rectification, which is still pending. it is however clear and apparent that the rectification application for registration of the trade mark of the respondent/defendant was filed by the appellant/plaintiff no. 1 after the institution of the present suit. the mere fact of filing of an application for ..... of by the respondent/defendant. however, it is established from the records that the respondent/ defendant issued an advertisement in the trade mark journal dated 28th february, 2005 in respect of its trade mark 'meromer'. application for registration of the trade mark 'meromer' was filed by the respondent/defendant on 2nd august, 2004 in class-5 and after the aforesaid advertisement, as ..... shape of vialsthe plaintiff has adopted a shape of the defendant has also chosen a vialthe vials shape, however, it is slightlydifferent.6. plaintiffs' trade mark: defendant' trade mark'plaintiff's mark 'meronem' the defendant's mark is `meromer'the defendant's mark is `meromer'11. the appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit on 4th october, 2005 on the basis of the registration of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-28-2007
Reported in : LC2007(2)129; 2007(35)PTC50(Del)
..... dealing in any mode or manner steel and stainless steel fasteners or goods of same/similar/allied/cognate descriptions and nature under the impugned trade mark/trade name kamdhenu/kamdhenu industrial service or any other trade mark/trade name identical with or deceptively similar thereto in relation to impugned goods and goods of same/similar/allied/cognate description or from doing any ..... in any mode or manner in steel and stainless steel fasteners or goods of same/similar/allied/cognate descriptions and nature under the impugned trade mark/trade name kamdhenu/kamdhenu industrial service or any other trade mark/trade name identical with or deceptively similar thereto in relation to impugned goods and goods of same/similar/allied/cognate description or from doing any ..... of the plaintiff, establishing the deliberate act of dishonest imitation on the part of the defendant.3. in these circumstances, bearing in mind the resemblance between the trade mark and trade name of the plaintiff and the defendant, the present suit has been filed seeking the following reliefs:(i) for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants by ..... directory 'thomas register of indian manufacturers, 2004' wherein the factum of the defendant's engagement in manufacturing and marketing of steel and stainless steel fasteners under the trade mark and trade name kamdhenu industrial service became known to it. it has been submitted that the goods of the defendant are the same or in any case are cognate .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-20-2007
Reported in : LC2007(3)228; 2007(35)PTC345(Del)
..... the suit is, thereforee, contested by the defendant no. 1. in the written statement filed by it, it is claimed that there is no violation of the trade mark inasmuch as various trade marks registrations obtained by the plaintiff are in class 25, 18 and 28. they relate to different sportswear, bags, umbrella, parasols and games and playthings, gymnastic and sporting ..... disposal of the suit rather than granting injunction particularly in view of the aforesaid other factors mentioned hereinafter.d) the trade mark of the defendant is a registered trade mark. it is because of this reason action of violation of trade mark of the plaintiff is not even available to it and the plaintiff has brought up passing off action and infringement ..... on account of the letter dated 6th august, 2005 purported to have been issued by badminton association of india. the said declaration also did not prove use of the trade mark on commercial basis in any manner whatsoever. the said letter talks about supply of shuttlecocks 'free of cost'. the question whether any shuttlecocks, as per alleged agreement with ..... the technologically most advanced shuttlecocks to benefit and enable the players at every level to play their sports at a higher level. these shuttlecocks are also sold under the trade mark/name yonex. yonex feather shuttlecocks demonstrate accurate flight stability over distance under varying environmental conditions. from the careful selection of high quality materials to advanced manufacturing process, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-27-2007
Reported in : LC2007(3)46; 2007(35)PTC388(Del)
..... for filing of the evidence affidavit in support of an opposition beyond the maximum period of three months prescribed under rule 50 (1) of the trade marks rules, 2002 and that the answer to question no. 2 is that the non-filing of the evidence affidavit within the prescribed time would by itself ..... give any discretion to the registrar in this connection. the object is apparent that the delays be cut down in deciding the application for registration of a trade mark.16. it is, thereforee, quite clear that the answer to question no. 1 is that the registrar does not have the power to extend the time ..... mentioned therein.7. reading rule 50, it is clear that the evidence by way of affidavit in support of an opposition to the registration of a trade mark has to be filed within two months of the service of a copy of the counter-statement on the opponent. this period of two months is further ..... counter-statement in form tm-6 on 14.10.2002. it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that under rule 50 (1) of the trade marks rules, 2002, evidence by way of affidavit in support of the respondent no. 1's opposition ought to have been filed within two months which was extendable ..... registrar to extend time. he also placed strong reliance on a decision of a full bench of this court in the case of hastimal jain trading as oswal industries v. registrar of trade marks and anr. 2000 ptc 24 (fb).6. section 21 of the 1999 act contains provisions in respect of the opposition to registration. sub .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-2007
Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR521; 2007(4)MhLj243; LC2007(2)67; 2007(35)PTC334(Bom)
..... in industrial or commercial matters; or(b) is detrimental to its distinctive character; or(c) is against the reputation of the trade mark.(9) where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation and reference in this section ..... of the plaintiff.7. in the first place, it is necessary to examine whether the word 'raymond' is common and therefore available for adoption without reference to the plaintiff's trade mark. the reader's digest great encyclopaedic dictionary describes the word 'raymond' as under:raymond (masc.). ultimately from gmc raginmund, 'mighty protection'.' the defendants have also submitted a ..... act, 1957 for the word 'raymond' written in stylized manner. in short, for the goods in question, which are broadly wearing apparel, plaintiffs have registered copyright and registered trade mark for the word 'raymond'.4. the defendant is a company called 'raymond pharmaceuticals limited' and has nothing to do with wearing apparels. it uses the word 'raymond' as ..... 1925, which had conceived and adopted the use of word 'raymond' in a stylized manner for marketing its product.3. on 27th june, 1983, the plaintiff obtained registration for the trade mark 'raymond' under registration no. 401766 registered in class 25 in respect of textile piece goods including shirting, suiting and saris, dress materials, blankets, shawls, satin, bed and table .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-04-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR48; (2007)109BOMLR911; LC2007(2)201; 2007(35)PTC295(Bom)
..... in part b and in respect of processed or frozen meat products falling in class 29 of schedule iv to the trade marks rules 2002 ('the first trade mark'). the first trade mark was registered on 4th july 1989; (b) a second trade mark was subsequently adopted by the plaintiff in 2005 consisting of the word nandus enclosed within an oval shaped structure in white ..... using in relation to any eatable goods or restaurant or hotelling services or processed and frozen chicken and meat products the impugned trade-mark 'nandos' or any other deceptively similar trade-mark so as to infringe the plaintiffs registered trade-mark 'nandu'. a perpetual injunction on the same terms in relation to passing off is also claimed. by this notice of motion ..... goods may be considered similar to services the guiding principles and factors that are relevant in considering whether there is similarity between goods/services are as follows:(i)the english trade marks act, 1938 contained a phrase 'goods of the same description' which was relevant in deciding application for registration. there is a line of authorities that explain this ..... kebabs, chicken nuggets, fried chicken, boneless chicken, chicken legs and other varieties of chicken products as well as meat pies , meat tenderizers;(iii) it adopted the first trade mark in respect of the said business.(iv) it has been extensively widening its product line and services by introduction of other food related products namely curries, biryanis, including vegetarian .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-18-2007
Reported in : ILR2007KAR3346; 2007(5)KarLJ638; LC2007(3)153; 2008(37)PTC247(Karn)
..... india since october 1996, as is evident from paragraph 7 of memorandum of appeal. this being the admitted facts, plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive right on the defendants trade mark. since defendant has been using its trade mark since 1983, plaintiffs cannot have any grievance against it. the suit filed by the plaintiffs is imaginary and vexatious. the trial court is justified in dismissing ..... in such circumstances is not allowed, the trader or manufacturer by virtue of earlier registration will be permitted to enjoy the mischief of trafficking in trade mark....therefore the plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive right to trade with their trade mark 'mac'.15. it is also pertinent to note that the admitted position is, plaintiffs grievance is only against using the word mac by the ..... it is also not disputed that the expression 'charminar' is not an inventive word which is the condition precedent for defensive registration under section 47 of the trade marks act (section 38 of the trade marks act of 1940). no evidence has been led by the respondent company that the respondent company had really intended or even now intends to manufacture any other ..... ) 43, 1999 ptc (19) 334, air 1990 delhi 19, 2004 (28) otc 121 (sc), 56 (1994) dlt 102, in support of the contention regarding infringement of trade mark. he contended that prior registration of trade mark confers exclusive right upon the plaintiffs and the same has to be protected under section 33 of the act. he also contended that the name of a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-31-2007
Reported in : 2008(2)KarLJ285; 2007(6)AIRKarR433; 2008AIHC521(Kar)
..... even though the first two letters are different, the ending two letters are similar in pronunciation. hence, there is likelihood of causing confusion and deception between the two marks because its trade mark, name, logo etc., are deceptively similar. thus keeping in view the chance of this ultimately being-established whether the defendant should be injuncted during the pendency of the ..... importance in view of the judgments cited supra.19. in the instant case, as already noticed the grievance is not with regard to the violation of trade mark itself but using deceptively similar trade mark. in this regard, the plaintiff has referred to several aspects to indicate regarding the popularity of their product, the amounts incurred towards advertisement and the reputation ..... and 2 of the code of civil procedure, 1908. however, insofar as the injunctions being sought for in the case of infringements of a registered trade mark on the contention that the trade mark or description used by the defendant is deceptively similar, an element of common law remedy also creeps into the situation inasmuch as the infringement or violation would ..... in this context, the same requires a deeper analysis.15. as such, considering' that there is a public notice and thereafter one becomes the registered proprietor of the trade mark or trade description, in law, the registration after following the procedure is in itself an injunction in rem against all persons from infringing or copying the same. that being so, .....Tag this Judgment!