Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 7,495 results (0.128 seconds)

Mar 01 2013 (HC)

The Institute of Cost Accountants of India Vs. the Registrar of Trade ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-01-2013

..... 19.09.2011 from respondent no.1 to its advocate in kolkata stating that its application had been examined under the trade marks act, 1999 and trade mark rules, 2002 and that the mark was open to objection for the reasons mentioned therein. for the purpose of this writ petition, the objections are not relevant ..... body corporate constituted under the provisions of the institute of cost and works accountants act, 1959. respondent nos.1 and 2 are the registrars of trade marks at mumbai and kolkata respectively. 3. the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.1 to fix a date of hearing in respect ..... 19.09.2011 ; exercised the option for furnishing the objections and applied for a hearing. 8. rule 38 of the trade marks rules, 2002 reads as under:- ??38. expedited examination, objection to acceptance, hearing:- ..................................... (4) if on consideration of an application for registration of a ..... of its application for registration of a trade mark ??cma ? in class 41. 4. on 01.10.2010, the petitioner applied for registration of the said mark for goods and services. the petitioner by a letter dated 30.03.2011, inter-alia ..... trade mark or on an application for an expedited examination of an application referred to in sub-rule (1) and any evidence of use .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2013 (TRI)

Walter Bushnel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mankind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Oct-31-2013

..... section 10 (1) of the act. ? 24. the honble apex court in 1970 (2) scr 222 (supra) held as hereunder:- ??for the infringement of its registered trade mark ??ruston ? by the respondents trade mark ??rustam ? , the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction. the respondent pleaded that ??rustam ? was not an infringement of ??ruston ? and stated that the words ..... /s. windias biotech limited under a valid drug licence and the products under the mark ??drotikind ? marketed by the respondent. the respondents trade mark ??drotikind ? is structurally, visually and phonetically dissimilar to the applicants trade mark ??drotin ? . the first respondents trade mark was published in the trade marks journal dated 30.3.2005 and the same has been registered unopposed and despite opportunity ..... and harrish laboratories private limited on behalf of the walter bushnel private limited. it is relevant to note that walter bushnel private limited being the registered proprietor of the trade mark ??drotin ? is entitled to get his goods manufactured through his licensees. 35. the learned counsel for the respondent also contended that the word ??drotin ? is ..... , the applicant did not oppose the same. it is further stated that the applicant has obtained drug licence for manufacture and sale of medicinal preparations under the trade mark ??drotin ? in respect of coated tablets containing naptha (isi) as an active ingredient. the said contention has been averred with mala fide intention in order to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Sony Kabushiki Kaisa Also Trading as Sony Corporation Vs. Purusho ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Oct-25-2013

..... the test rather than the extent or duration of the use. however, a mere casual intermittent or experimental use may be insufficient to show an intention to adopt the mark as a trade mark for specific article or goods. ? e.) in 1997 (1) arblr 337 delhi sunstar lubricants ltd. and another vs. federal chemical industries ?? the delhi high court held that the plaintiffs ..... relied on the following judgments:- a.) 2001 (5) scc 73 ?? cadila healthcare ltd. vs. cadila pharmaceuticals ltd. ?? suit filed in district court, vadodara by appellant to restrain respondent from using trade mark. falligo being medicinal good allegedly similar to appellants brand fallcitab ?? apex court elaborated on principle of law of deceptive similarity ?? overturned gujarat high courts order stating exclusive right under section ..... based software market. in fact, it is the world leader in commercial, industrial electronic and entertainment business aggressively expanding its business outside japan. v. the respondent is admittedly using the trade mark ??abt sony ? in relation to ??undergarments for ladies namely, brassieres, panties, lingeries, bikinis, t-shirts, socks and stockings and undergarments for men namely, underwear, banian, t-shirts, socks and stockings .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 2013 (TRI)

Gajendra Kalyanbhai Sheth Vs. Dipakbhai Natwarlal Contractor and Anoth ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Oct-25-2013

..... have to be granted. in the instant case, in fact, it is the defendant who has explained as to how he has been using the trade mark, rather than the plaintiff, who ought to have explained. therefore, the observations made by the honble delhi high court in the aforesaid case does ..... to develop new markets. the respondent was present at the inauguration. he was a party to the joint venture of the family business and the trade mark metro was jointly used by both parties. even though the partners have retired, both family members were doing their business with each other. this ..... ). shobhnaben retired from the partnership firm on 31st october 1979. the remaining two partners (applicants and the respondent) continued the business and using the trade mark metro and metro card agency as joint property. on 1st october, 1979 gajendrabhai sheth also retired and on the same day his wife replaced him as ..... high court of gujarat and the applicant cannot take advantage of this order. (vi) the respondent claims to be the exclusive owner of the trade mark metro. para 4 of the rectification aversthat with effect from 01.09.1998 dipakbhai natwarlal contractor had become sole proprietor of m/s. metro ..... agency in his sole name as proprietor and owner therof. the applicant had also failed to file notice of opposition when the impugned mark was published in the trade marks journal. filing of impugned rectification petition after such a long time shows the mala fide conduct of the applicant. the applicant are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2013 (TRI)

Shaligram D. Anand Vs. Sanjay Kanodia and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Sep-13-2013

..... year 1993 mr. sanjay kanodia started the firm ??swiss written aids ??, but the documents are only from the year 1997. this board has cancelled the trade mark in cases where there was a wrong date of user in the application for registration. in the instant case, we do not think we can have ..... the applicants cannot be a person aggrieved because the assignment deed itself is not properly recorded and there are discrepancies in the deed of assignment. the trade mark registry is not an inventive word; there was no proof for the applicants to show that they are prior user when the deed of assignment itself ..... the year 1993, which was proposed to be used on the date of application. subsequently, in the year 2005 they had applied for the impugned trade mark registration they used since the year 1993 in the impugned application. the applicants counsel has also submitted that they had given proof of their sales turn ..... title are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pen, ball pen, jell pen, sketch pens, refills and parts since the year 1990 under the trade mark rolly. in the year 1993 they started a firm viz., m/s. swiss writing aids and started their business activities in the firm name. in ..... is prohibited under section 9 (2) (a) of the act. (c) the applicants are the first adopters and users of the trade mark rolly since the year 1987. the mark was applied for registration as early as on 23.10.1989 and registered in the year 1994. the respondents have applied for registration in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2013 (TRI)

Sudheer Bahl, Trading as Khyber Restaurant Vs. M/S. Khyber Restaurant, ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Nov-13-2013

..... nil, attendance register of employees, medical certificate of employees, self assessment tax, sales tax returns etc., mere filing of these documents does not prove the commercial use of the trade mark impugned herein. there is no evidence in the invoice/bill to prove the use since 11.07.1975 as claimed in the impugned application for registration. 41. we have held ..... ) of the act.; g) the registered proprietor cannot claim any refuge under section 12 of the act as the applicants are prior user and also registered proprietor of the trade mark; h) the mark ought to be removed as registered proprietors have obtained registration by suppression of material facts before the registrar at the time of filing the application; i) the impugned ..... bills, invoices, promotional materials, brochures, visiting cards, registers, labels etc. over the decades the applicant has conducted extensive activities of promoting and advertising the said services under the said trade marks khyber restaurant and khyber. the applicant has spent large amount of money for the same. the huge appreciation of good quality services and food has led to a generation of ..... restaurant and khyber to become synonymous with it, which needless to state continues as on date. 5. by virtue of extensive, long and continuous use of the said trade mark khyber restaurant and khyber have become very popular with a substantial segment of not only customers of the said service but also those connected with the food and hospitality industry .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2013 (TRI)

Rajiv Jain, Trading as M/S. Vepeejay Electrical Industries Vs. Dinesh ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Sep-13-2013

..... s. usha vice chairman the instant appeal arises out of the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the assistant registrar of trade marks under section 57 (4) of the trade marks act, 1999 removing the registered trade mark ??samar suhana ? under no.1881086 in class 11. 2. the brief facts of the case are as follows: the ..... also by this court. in that suit, an amendment application has also been filed so as to include the ground of infringement of the appellant's trade mark but that application has not yet been disposed of. it is, however, obvious that if the application is allowed, the amendments will relate back to ..... thereafter, on 4.8.1993, the appellant filed a rectification petition under sections 45 and 46 of the act for removing the entry relating to the trade mark for which registration certificate was granted to the respondents on 30.11.1992. the appellant has also filed a suit for passing-off (suit no. 1705 ..... ), which is as follows:- ??69. as against the above decision, there is a decision of a division bench of the same high court in registrar of trade marks and anr. vs. kumar ranjan sen and ors., air 1966 calcutta 311, in which it was laid down as under :- it will be noticed that the ..... aggrieved by this order. the counsel has relied on two judgments. (1) 2004 (30) ptc 297 (ipab) ramesh l.vadodaria vs. asst. registrar of trade marks ?? when the entry is wrongly remaining in the register, the registrar is bound to make inquiries after issuing notice to both the parties. (2) air 1988 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2013 (TRI)

Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. Saint Watches Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Oct-01-2013

..... from the date of publication and further period of one month on specific request in form-44 and time has to be reckoned from the date the trade marks journal was made available to the public. we are of the considered view that section 21(1) of the act cannot be read in isolation and ..... rule 47(1), the form tm-5 was filed by the appellant in the month of august 2006 i.e. from the date of publication in the trade marks journal, which was made available to the public. even on merits, it is submitted that the findings of the deputy registrar in the impugned order is ..... is contrary to the facts and law. it is submitted that the deputy registrar has committed a grave error in rendering a finding that the impugned trade mark containing the logo of the respondent is not deceptively similar to that of the appellant. it is further submitted that the deputy registrar had erred in ..... respectively. 2. the appellant herein has challenged the logo of the respondents trade mark claiming that the same is deceptively similar to that of the logo of the appellant. both the respondent and the appellant are engaged in the manufacture and ..... no. 219 of 2013) k.n. basha, chairman this appeal is against the order dated 30/03/2010 passed by the deputy registrar of trade marks dismissing the notice of opposition no. mas 236946 and mas 236947 filed by the appellant herein with respect to the application no. 1257304 and 1257305 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Hari Rubber Private Ltd. Vs. M/S. Honda Rubber Private Limited

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jun-07-2013

..... the mark claimed user from 1995 for which there was no evidence. in 2005 (31) ptc 330 (ipab) (supra) this board ..... was advertised before acceptance in the journal dated 25.11.2003. the certificate mentions that the goods in respect of which the trade mark is claimed is bicycle tyres and tubes. 2. the applicant is hari rubbers private limited. according to them after their incorporation, they ..... ??h.r.p.l. ? in 1991. therefore the applicant is the prior adopter and prior user of the mark h.r.p.l. and protected under section 34 of the trade marks act, 1989 (in short ??act). 4. the respondents mark ought not to have been registered in violation of section 9. the respondent has not used ..... in them obtaining registration. when registration have been obtained by giving wrong date of user marks cannot be allowed to be continued. in 2012 (49) ptc 287 delhi (db) (supra) the delhi high court held that the registration of trade mark has been obtained by filing of false statement. in that case, the owner of ..... held if the bills and invoices do not reveal the trade name, the relationship between the goods identified by the mark and mentioned in the bills is not established. in 1994 rajdhani law reporter (sc) 100 (supra) wherein it is held that fraud .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2013 (HC)

Sabmiller India Limited (Formerly Skol Breweries Ltd.) Vs. Som Distill ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-08-2013

..... permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trade mark power 5000 or any other trade mark containing numeral 5000 or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said registered trade mark and for other reliefs. by an order dated 5th september 2011, this court has granted interim injunction restraining the defendant ..... (supra) is no longer valid in view of the said provision, are untenable. the provisions of section 30 (2) are applicable when the defendant uses the plaintiff's registered trade mark not as a trade mark but to show the character, kind or quality of the defendant's goods. for example, if a particular product is free of ingredient 'x', then if the ..... it is submitted that as set out in paragraph 9 of the plaint, the defendant is a habitual infringer. the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's registered trade mark haywards 5000 by using the trade mark power 5000 in respect of its beer. the plaintiff has therefore filed a suit being suit no. 603 of 2007 against the defendant in this court for ..... entertain the present suit. 3. briefly set out, the relevant facts are as under: 4. on 19th february 2009, the plaintiff applied for registration of its series trade mark "sabmiller india ?? sabmiller india" under the trade marks act, 1999 ("the act") under application no. 1787321 in class-21 in respect of glass bottles and in class-32 in respect of beers; mineral and aerated .....

Tag this Judgment!


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