Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 3,611 results (0.069 seconds)

Apr 22 2010 (HC)

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-22-2010

Reported in : LC2010(2)167

..... of trade marks in the manner noticed hereinbefore.9. this court has heard the submissions of mr. amit sibal, the learned counsel appearing for super cassettes and mr. n. mahabir, the learned counsel ..... t and not the device of circle.8. the appeal in this court filed by telco being cm(m) no. 344 of 1995 stood transferred after the enactment of the trade marks act, 1999 (tm act 1999) to the ipab. by the impugned order dated 1st october 2004, the ipab partly allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the dr ..... 9 in respect of electrical and electronic apparatus and instruments, radio and television transmitting and receiving sets, electric and electronic devices, audio and video recording etc. the mark was accepted for registration and advertised in trade marks journal no. 1005 dated 20th june 1991.5. respondent no. 3 telco (later renamed as tata motors ltd.) filed a notice of opposition no. del-7265 ..... ) and (1) (b) of section 11(1) required to be satisfied conjunctively. in other words, both identity or similarity with an earlier trade mark and similarity of goods and services in respect of which were covered by the earlier trade mark had to be shown. although section 11(2) was not adverted to, it appears that the ipab applied the test set out therein .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2010 (HC)

Marico Limited Vs. Agro Tech Foods Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-23-2010

Reported in : LC2010(2)14

..... word, the plaintiffs can have no monopoly to restrain its use. since 'piquant,' being a descriptive word, so the argument runs, could not be a trade name or trade mark, the plaintiffs cannot have a trade mark or a monopoly of which the use of the word 'piquant' by another trader can be an infringement. while i accept the premise, i am not ..... food stuffs. therefore, the use of the word 'low absorb technology' is justified.3.2 in this regard, reference is made to section 35 of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'trade mark act') which, according to the defendant, permits use of the words or expression which are descriptive of the character and quality of goods and services even against ..... upon restructuring of the business the assets of the erstwhile cadila group were taken over both by the appellant and the respondent. the appellant had manufactured a drug under the trade mark/brand name 'falcigo' which contained artesunate used for the treatment of cerebral malaria. cerebral malaria is commonly known as 'falcipharum'. after obtaining the necessary permission from the drugs ..... that the navratna was descriptive having no distinctiveness and hence, could not be registered. this objection of the respondent was upheld. the appellant's application for registration of the trade mark was refused. this refusal led to the various proceedings being filed, which ultimately culminated in two appeals being filed in the supreme court. the supreme court upheld the finding .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2010 (HC)

Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Dire ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : May-11-2010

..... paddy and inflorescence of coconut tree in its middle and two paddy shoots at both sides of the para. the general public, customers and consumers have accepted this trade mark as the trade mark of the plaintiffs' products. this is printed upon all packets, jute bags etc. of plaintiffs' products as well as their advertisements. the plaintiffs are manufacturers of ..... of behrain and dubai and process for registration is in progress in other countries also. the plaintiffs' application for registration of the trade mark is pending with the office of the registrar of trade marks, chennai. the plaintiffs' trade mark is distinctive and it distinguishes plaintiffs' products from similar products manufactured by others including the products of the defendants. the defendants ..... was opposed by the plaintiffs and the registering authority dismissed the application by their order dated 7-3-2005. the defendants have absolutely no authority to use the trade mark and trade name of the plaintiffs. the defendants' act is illegal. the plaintiffs are suffering heavy loss because of the defendants' activities. unless this illegal activities are prevented, ..... and distinguished with the defendants' products. the defendants have never taken advantage of the popularity and reputation or goodwill enjoyed by the plaintiffs. even though the trade mark and trade name used by the plaintiffs may be identical and similar to that of the defendants, they have no mala fide intention to pass off their products as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 2010 (HC)

Micolube India Ltd. Vs. Maggon Auto Centre and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-14-2010

Reported in : 166(2010)DLT642

..... ' in january, 2004 with respect to oils, greases and lubricants for automotive vehicles etc. in class 4 and the same was registered on 17th october, 2005 as trade mark no. 1259864 for the mark 'mico' and trade mark no. 1259863 was given with regard to the wheel device with the word mico on 13th january, 2007. subsequently, defendant no. 2 began manufacturing and marketing engine ..... and gear oils. it is submitted that in terms of section 30(2)(e) of the trade marks act, usage of a trade mark which is registered under the same act does not constitute an act of infringement.10. it is further submitted that the plaintiff's registration is invalid and ought ..... the application for stay of proceedings, the plaintiff submitted that the present suit is a composite suit seeking relief for infringement as well as passing off. section 124 of the trade marks act is applicable only to suits pertaining to infringement of trademarks. further, in the written statement the defendants have relied upon sections 28(3) and 30(2)(e) of ..... as the cpc for brevity) for stay of the present suit.2. the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing of trade mark, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, royalty, delivery up etc. praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs:(a) for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants by itself .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2010 (HC)

Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd. Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. a ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-22-2010

Reported in : LC2010(1)205

..... . the petitioner filed a suit cs (os) no. 1172 of 2008 in this court seeking to restrain respondent no. l bisleri international pvt. ltd. (bipl) from using the trade mark 'himalayan' or any other trade mark deceptively similar to it in relation to the respondent's goods and services. it is stated that an interim arrangement was arrived at between the parties. on 24th ..... by the central government appears to have been enclosed with the statement of the senior examiner. the reply dated 25th november 2009 sent by the public information officer of the trade marks registry, mumbai to the petitioner indicates that although the senior examiner who filed the statement was authorized by the registrar for that purpose, there was no notification of the central ..... imposed as a matter of course.' as regards registration nos. 1078116 and 1078117 they consisted of the word 'himalayan' and in the absence of any other feature of a trade mark character in the mark/label there was no scope for incorporating a disclaimer condition. consequently, the said registrations were held to be prima facie not justifiable.13. mr. amarjit singh refers to ..... the ipab sent the petitioner copies of two more rectification applications [ora/181/08/tm/del and ora/182/08/tm/del] filed by bipl for rectification/removal of registered trade mark nos. 1078117 and 1078116 respectively. the petitioner filed its replies to the above applications on 15th october 2008. bipl filed its rejoinder thereto.5. on 18th november 2008, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2010 (HC)

Shelke Bevarages Private Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Compani ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-29-2010

Reported in : (2010)112BOMLR1479,LC2010(1)313

..... .2009 denied the contentions in the notice and contended that they are carrying on business of packaged drinking water honestly by adopting a distinctive label 'oxycool' as a trade mark under the trade mark registration no. 01763076 in class 32 in respect of packaged drinking mineral water. the defendant further contended that it adopted 'oxycool' as a distinctive trademark for packaged ..... continuance of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit would cause undue hardship and uncompensatable disadvantages for the business of the defendants in the user of their trade mark 'oxycooe' and, therefore, the interim injunction is liable to be vacated. we make it clear that our observations are limited to decide this appeal and that we ..... for selling packaged drinking water. it is contended that the appellants (the defendants herein) have no intention to tread upon the goodwill of the respondents/plaintiffs and that their trade mark 'oxycool' is distinct and dissimilar to the plaintiffs' product.5. the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are many traders using the common word 'oxy' for ..... entered into registered user agreement dated 18.10.2005 with plaintiff no. l's company known as dhariwal industries limited to grant nonexclusive right to user company for using the trade marks 'manikchand' and 'oxyrich' in conjunction i.e. 'manikchand oxyrich' in respect of packaged drinking water. thus, the company (the 2nd plaintiff) was authorised the user invention in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 2010 (HC)

Kishore Kumar Vs. L. Chuni Lal Kidarnath and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-12-2010

Reported in : LC2010(1)258

..... common terms cannot be the subject matter of trademarks. the said decision also observed that: 5. the law on the subject is well settled. in cases of infringement either of trade mark or of copyright, normally an injunction must follow. mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such cases. the grant of injunction also becomes ..... the division bench; the appeal had been filed by the second defendant. the plaintiff further submits that he had no personal knowledge of the imposition of such disclaimer by the trade mark registrar; it has therefore become necessary to state this aspect in the suit, by way of incorporating it through an appropriate amendment. the plaintiff proposes to introduce para 5a for ..... him. he alleges having sold them throughout the country either directly or through his dealers' network. it is also alleged that the plaintiff sells all his goods under the same trade mark with sub brands such as ranger, superstar, urja, energy etc. the suit claims that for the 11 year period between 1997-1998 and 2008-2009, the plaintiffs products sales have ..... customer walking into a shop. the privy council in de cordova and ors. v. vick chemical cov. 68 r.p.c. 103, while considering whether the mark 'karsote vapour rub' was deceptively similar to trade mark 'vapo rub', inter alia, held it is more useful to observe that in most persons the eye is not an accurate recorder of visual detail and that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2010 (HC)

Jolen Inc. Vs. Shobanlal JaIn and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-28-2010

Reported in : LC2010(2)176

..... passed by the intellectual property appellate board (ipab) dismissing the petitioner's appeals thereby upholding the orders dated 11th march 1999 and 11th october 2000 of the assistant registrar of trade marks ('ar') refusing registration of the trademark jolen applied for by the petitioner.background facts2. the petitioner jolen inc., was formed as a partnership firm in the year 1955 in ..... the channels through which such magazines were circulated. the respondents had established prior use since 1985 whereas the petitioner's application was filed in 1991 claiming user of the said trade mark since december 1985. the petitioner had failed to establish through evidence that by way of advertisements in foreign journals about their trans-border reputation. it was held that in order ..... be known in the countries other than its origin or to every person in the area where it is known best, mere advertisement in other countries is sufficient if the trade mark has established its reputation and goodwill in the country of its origin and countries where it is registered.22. in modern world, advertisements in the newspapers travel beyond the country ..... high court in the appellant's own case jolen inc. v. doctor & company (supra), has been rendered without any evidence. he referred to the orders of the registrar of trade marks and submitted that the appellant has not established the trans-border reputation. he referred to n.r. dongre case, cited supra, and submitted that in that case the goods were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2010 (HC)

Unilever Australasia Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Jayant ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-18-2010

..... business or personally works for gain.explanation : for the purposes of sub-section (2), 'person' includes the registered proprietor and the registered user.19. section 134 of trade marks act empower the plaintiffs to file a suit for infringement etc., before the district court. clause 2 of the said section includes a non-abstante provision, which specifically ..... in india for permanent mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from passing off any goods or products as though such goods or products are of the plaintiffs by using the trade mark 'inxtinct' or anything that is deceptively similar for the products or goods and etc.6. in the said proceedings, 1st defendant who is revision petitioner herein, entered ..... against defendant nos. 1 and 2, their distributors, stockists, business partners, employees, resellers, agents, representatives claiming through or under them from using in any manner the trade mark 'instinct' or name or mark 'instinct' which is phonetically and deceptively similar to plaintiffs' trademark 'instinct', in relation to any goods, products or services, from selling, marketing, importing, exporting or ..... . it is the case of plaintiffs that the defendants having known the popularity of plaintiffs trademark 'instinct' and with a malafide intention of taking undue advantage of plaintiffs' trade mark 'instinct have now released in to market a deodorant and shower gel under the name and style of 'axe inxtinct'. according to the plaintiff's the word 'inxtinct .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2010 (SC)

Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refinerie ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-27-2010

..... a legitimate grievance in appeal about the way the trial proceeded. the learned single judge rightly allowed the appellant's plea for production of the original certificates of registration of trade mark as additional evidence because that was simply in the interest of justice and there was sufficient statutory basis for that under clause (b) of order 41, rule 27. but ..... the judgment and decree passed by the single judge. the division bench of the high court took the view that there was no occasion or justification for admitting the original trade mark registration certificates at the appellate stage as additional evidence. referring to the provisions of order 41, rule 27 of the civil procedure code (hereafter `cpc'), the division bench made the ..... andhra pradesh high court. in that appeal, the appellant also filed an application under order 41, rule 27 (cmp no.2972 of 2000) for accepting the originals of the trade mark registration certificates and the allied documents (of which xerox copies were filed before the trial court) as additional evidence. a learned single judge of the high court took up the ..... coconut hair oil and in class 29 in respect of all edible oils included in that class. alleging that the respondents were marketing their product in infringement of its registered trade mark, the appellant filed a suit (os no.1 of 1995) before the third additional chief judge, city civil court, hyderabad, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from marketing .....

Tag this Judgment!

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