Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 4,800 results (0.065 seconds)

Jan 04 2012 (HC)

Dhiren Krishna Paul Trading Vs. Health and Glow Retailing Private Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-04-2012

..... special provision has now been made to deal with that situation by incorporating sub-section 5 of section 29 and therefore, so far as subject of using of registered trade mark as a trade-name is concerned, provision is contained in sub- section 5 of section 29 and therefore on that subject no other provision would apply. generalia specialibus non derogant is ..... might be provided by the same business and so with descriptions of goods and descriptions of services. association of trade marks are defined under section 2(1)(c): 2(1)(c) associated trade marks means trade marks deemed to be or required to be registered as associated trade marks under this act. 24.the onus is on the registered proprietor who is invoking the provisions of section ..... practices 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 to ..... is having registered office at chennai and carrying on business as retail service provider in beauty and health care merchandise, eversince 1997. (ii)respondent/plaintiff has been using the trade mark and the trade device known as 'health and glow, written in a stylised manner with the image of a dancing girl inside the letter 'g' eversince 1997. it was registered under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2012 (HC)

Rhizome Distilleries Pvt.Ltd Vs. Union of India

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-16-2012

..... . since the order passed by the 2nd respondent board, allowing the rectification application for removal of the petitioner's trade mark from the register of trade marks by applying the principle which was available to the trade mark holder before registering the trade mark, suffers from illegality, this court can make interference under article 226 of the constitution of india. under such circumstances ..... for sale. while so, on 16.02.2008, the 4th respondent came across yet another application for registration of the trade mark 'rhizome's imperial gold' whisky label vide trade mark application no.1454195 advertised in the trade mark journal and the same was also opposed by the 4th respondent's wholly owned indian subsidiary austin nichols and company. the ..... in our considered opinion, the grounds embodied under sections 9 and 11 are available to the persons only at the time when they raise objection for registering the trade mark. the said principles cannot be applied for rectification of the registration, particularly considering the factum that the liquor india private limited has withdrawn their objections before the ..... and blending partner of seagram manufacturing private limited, though objected to the said label, subsequently it had withdrawn their objections and thereafter, the petitioner has been using the trade mark 'rhizome imperial gold' for several years. but, all of a sudden, the 4th respondent filed an application under section 57 of the act for rectification of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2012 (SC)

Super Cassetts Industries Ltd. Vs. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-03-2012

..... 31 of the act to give effect to the final relief which it is empowered to give under the said section.25. dr. singhvi referred to section 25 of the trade marks act as also section 25(i) and (ii) of the patents act, which vested the authorities under the said acts to pass appropriate orders in aid of the final relief .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2012 (HC)

A.Kamarunnisa Ghori. Vs. the Chairperson Prevention of Money Launderin ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-11-2012

..... children) act, 2000paragraph-14offences under the emigration act, 1983paragraph-15offences under the passports act, 1967paragraph-16offences under the foreigners act, 1946paragraph-17offences under the copyright act, 1957paragraph-18offences under the trade marks act, 1999paragraph-19offences under the information technology act, 2000paragraph-20offences under the biological diversity act, 2002paragraph-21offences under the protection of plant varieties and farmers' rights act, 2001paragraph-22offences under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2012 (TRI)

American Gem Society Laboratories Llc Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Trad ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jun-08-2012

..... indian market. that not being the case here, the application is not able to meet the primary objection raised in the examination report. (iv) similarly, in our view the trade mark ??setting the highest standard for diamond grading ? is totally descriptive and laudatory. it tells potential customers, whether retailers or end users, that the services rendered by it will help ..... it is lacking ??honest adoption and use is erroneous and bad in law. (e) it was submitted in response to the examination report and also during the hearing that the trade marks ??american gem society laboratories ? and ??setting the highest standard for diamond grading ? has been used since 1996 through print and electronic media and evidence of a few advertisement ..... and several other countries. in india the application was made in june, 2005. it was duly examined and the examination report raised objection under section 9(1)(b) of the trade marks act, 1999 (in short ??act) on ground of geographical significance and also on relative grounds. the appellant submitted a detailed response to the examination report contesting both the objections. ..... heard the submissions of counsel one after the other. since the grounds of appeal and decision are similar we are disposing of these two appeals through a common order. the trade marks refused are detailed as under: (i) ??setting the highest standard for diamond grading ? under no.1365886 in class 42. (ii)the second application was ??american gem society laboratories ? .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Crompton Greaves Limited, Mumbai Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Ne ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Oct-26-2012

..... 7. the impugned registration is contrary to the provisions of section 11(1)(b) of the trade marks act, 1999. the applicants trade mark crompton greaves is a well known trade mark. the impugned trade mark crompton super is deceptively similar to the applicants trade mark crompton greaves. the use of a similar trade mark would amount to passing off of the respondents goods as for the applicants goods. 8. the respondent ..... the act. 9. the applicant is a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 47(1) and 57 of the act, as the applicant is the proprietor of the trade mark crompton greaves which is extensively used in respect of a wide range of goods including pumps and motors. 10. the respondents were served with the copy of the application for ..... 5. the applicants have advertised through various medias the various goods sold under the trade mark crompton greaves. the applicants trade mark crompton greaves enjoys great goodwill and reputation and is exclusively identified by the trade and public with the applicants goods. it is a well known mark. 6. the impugned trade mark crompton super registered under no. 1154614 in class 7 is bound to cause confusion ..... (circuit bench sitting at delhi) order (no. 241/2012) s. usha, vice-chairman: 1. the instant rectification application has been filed for removal of the trade mark crompton super registered under no. 1154614 in class 7. 2. the applicant is a market leader in a number of product groups in the electrical sector. the applicants are .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2012 (HC)

Nirlep Appliances Limited Vs. Gautam Metals and Another

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-08-2012

..... dealing in mixer, juicer, grinder, hot plate and hand blender or any other goods similar to the plaintiff's aforesaid goods bearing the trade mark nirlep and/or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark nirlep so as to pass off or enable others to pass off defendants' goods as and for plaintiff's well known goods and/or ..... 457876 in class 21, no.635066 in class 09, nos.932084, 1063686, 1084948 and 1226390 all in class 21 by using the impugned trade mark nirlep and/or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark nirlep in respect of mixer, juicer, grinder, hot plate, blender or same or similar goods as those in respect of which the plaintiff ..... cooking saucepans. on or about 27th july, 1994, silverlight nirlepware industries private limited applied for and secured registration of the trade mark nirlep (word) under the trade marks act under registration no.635066 in class 09 in respect of electrical appliances. both the aforesaid registrations have been renewed from time to time and are valid and ..... 1 to f-3. 8. it is then contended that on or about 01st august, 1986, silverlight nirlepware industries private limited applied for and secured registration of the trade mark nirlep (word) under the trade marks act under registration no.457876 in class 21 in respect of kitchen containers (not of precious metal or coated therewith), (non-electric) cooking utensils, (non-electric) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2012 (HC)

Glosoft Technologies Private Limited Vs. M/S. Squadra Education Privat ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-30-2012

..... up. 7. the applicant also filed of 2011 before the district judge, kozhikode against one meharoof manalody and another restraining them from using the trade mark and trade name of the applicant's company. since the applicant had already filed a suit in of 2012 before this court, they cannot file the second ..... students and businessmen, executives and members of general public. they commenced their computer education centres during october, 2000 and are using the trade mark for 11 years. subsequently, they had registered their trade mark on 03.08.2001 with the trade mark registry. the directors of first respondent company initially had franchise agreement with the applicant. subsequently, they had registered the defendant company on ..... common counter affidavit, dated 11.6.2012 has also been filed by the applicant / plaintiff. according to the applicant / plaintiff, the defendants' logo was deceptively similar to the logo and trade mark of the applicant / plaintiff. after the letter 'g', they have incorporated the word "i" and that the word "tec" has been retained identically. the logo and the name ..... of 2012 for appointing an advocate commissioner to take an inventory of the stock used or unused offending gitec or gi tec education materials, course study materials, trade marks together with blocks and dyes stationary, brouchers, advertisement materials, an order dated 04.04.2012, this court had appointed an advocate commissioner to carry out the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 2012 (TRI)

Z-medica Corporation United States of America Vs. Mukesh Gupta New Del ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jun-12-2012

..... . in other words, it cannot be expected to perform its essential function as a trade mark which is to distinguish goods. the word ??quikclot used for life saving drugs is inherently descriptive. it is a non-distinctive word and merely describes ..... give our ruling under section 18(1) of the act. regarding objection under section 9 on absolute ground we have serious reservation whether the impugned trade marks qualifies for registration and can serve as a source of origin of the goods having the capability to distinguish the good of one entity from others ..... set ex parte. we have heard the counsel for the applicant and gone through the records. 6. the grounds on which removal of the impugned registered trade mark are based on section 9(1), 11, 18(1), 47(1)(a) and 57 of the act. we have heard the counsel for the applicant ..... present distributor m/s. consolidated products corporation in respect of which the applicant is not a party. the applicant is aggrieved by the registration of the trade mark ??quikclot under no.1326454 in class 5 in respect of ??medicinal preparation registered in the name of one mukesh gupta. the registered proprietor is related ..... am trans health llc, usa to import, inter alia, hemostatic products from the us to india in june 2006. the applicant supplied products under the trade mark ??quikclot to am trans health llc in 2006 and 2007 which were shipped to s.k. jain for sale within india in good faith on a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2012 (HC)

P.S. Veerappa Vs. Palaniammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-13-2012

..... respondents are doing business damaging the reputation of the applicants cannot be sustained. though the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that they are also having a registered trade mark with regard to "tubes", absolutely no documentary proof was produced before this court that they are dealing with the said product. therefore, in my considered opinion, ..... above judgments would show that when there is no association of two products, the plaintiff cannot imagine how the use by the defendants of the trade mark can be detrimental to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark. in the instant case, as contended by the respondents, the applicants are purely dealing with agricultural products, herbal products, cash crop,etc., ..... is associated solely with the applicants with respect to various agricultural products since 1995 and particularly with fertilizers since 1999. the applicants commenced the use of the trade mark of agri gold with respect to various goods relating to agriculture and corporate farming in the year 1995. the applicants have been constantly diversifying and broadening their ..... , 1174588, 1174589, 1174590, 1174592, 1174594, 1174595, 1174599, 1174600, 1174602, 1174603, 1174605, 1174607, 1174608, 1296901, 1176229 or in any manner infringing the applicants' aforesaid registered trade marks by using the mark agreegold either as prefix or suffix in the course of business pending disposal of the suit. 2. it is the case of the applicants/plaintiffs that the 1st applicant .....

Tag this Judgment!

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