Lupin Ltd. and Another Vs. Johnson and Johnson and Another - Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Decided on: Dec-23-2014

Court: Mumbai

LAW: the Companies Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Trade Marks Act, Section 57, Section 28, Section 28, Section 28 of the Act, Section 28, Section 135 of the Act and Section 28, Section 35, Section 35 of the Act, section 35, section 35, Section 31 of the Act, Section 31, Section 31, Section 31, Section 56, the Designs Act, the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Designs Act, Section 19, Section 19, the Designs Act 2000, the Designs Act, the Designs Act 1911, Section 22, the Designs Act 2000, Section 22, Section 19, Section 107, the Patents Act 1970, Section 64, Section 64, the Patents Act, the Designs Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Patents Act, the Designs Act, Section 31(1, Section 28, Section 57, Section 124, Section 124(5, Section 31, Section 31, Section 19 and 22of the Designs Act 2000, the Patent Act, the Designs Act and Patent Act, Section 137, Section 31, Section 137, Section 31, Section 31, section 31, Section 124, Section 124, Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Trade Marks Act, The Trade Marks Act, Section 2, Section 6, Section 9, Section 11, Section 12, Chapter III, Section 18, Section 20, Section 21, Section 23, Section 25, Chapter IV of the Act, Section 30, Section 31, section 57, section 9, Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 35, Section 36, Chapter VII, Section 57, Section 83, Section 93, Section 124, section 30, Section 125, section 30, section 47, section 57, Section 47, section 57, Section 134, Section 136, Chapter VII (Rectification and Correction of Register, Section 91, Section 141, Section 28 of the 1999 Act, Section 28, Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, the Trade Marks Act, section 21, section 22(1, Section 31 of the 1999 Act, Section 31 of the Act of, Section 32 of the Act of, section 35, section 46, section 56, section 11, Section 32, Section 57 of the 1999 Act, Section 56, Section 124 of the 1999 Act, Section 111, Section 125, Section 56, Section 57, Section 125, Section 28 and Section 31, Section 31, Section 124, Section 124, Section 125, Section 124, Section 111 of the 1958 Act, Section 124, Section 28, Section 124, Section 31, Section 57, Section 125, Section 28, Section 28, The Trade Marks Act, Section 31, Section 28, section 28, section 31, the Designs Act, the Patents Act, the Designs Act, Section 22(4, Section 19, the Patents Act, Section 10, Section 64, the Designs Act, the Patents Act, section 22, the Designs Act, the Patents Act, section 19, the Designs Act, section 64, the Trade Marks Act, the Designs Act, the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act, Section 9(1, Section 28 of the Act, Section 28, Section 124(5, section 31, Section 31, Section 9, Section 32 of the Act, Section 9(1, Section 29, Section 29(5

ORG: CJ, Court, the Division Benches of this Court, Court, No.2663 of, Court, Court, Court, Delhi High Court, –, Lupin Limited, the Trade Marks Register, the Trade Marks Registry, the Register of Trade Marks, the Examiner of Trade Marks, the Trade Marks Journal, the Registrar of Trade Marks, the Register of Trade Marks, Suit No., Lupin Limited, Court, LUCYNTA, Court, Court, Court, Registrar, Parle Products Limited, Bhog Foods Limited, the Supreme Court, Corn Products Refining Company, Shangrila Food Products Limited, AIR 1960 SC 142, Bakeman Industries Ltd., Parle Products Limited, the Supreme Court, Court, Notice of Motion (L, Division, Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Court, Court, the Apex Court, Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Court, Court, Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., the Apex Court, Cadila Health Care Ltd., Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., SC, Court, the District Court, the Registrar/ Intellectual Property Appellate Board, IPAB, Sections 28, Court, Registrar, IPAB, Court, Court, Court, Court, the civil Court, the Civil Court, Plaintiff, Court, Court, Court, Sections 28, Applicant, the Supreme Court, National Bell Company V. Metal Goods Manufacturing Company Private Limited AIR, SC, Plaintiff, IPAB, Registrar, IPAB, Registrar, the Civil Court, the Civil Court, IPAB, Defendants, Court, Legislature, Legislature, Court, the Trade Marks Act, Court, Court, Various Courts, the Supreme Court, Court, the Trade Mark Registry, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Tribunal, Court, Tribunal, Court, Court, Court, Court, “if valid”., “if valid”., Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Legislature, Legislature, Register, U/Sec, the Trade Marks Act, Registrar, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, IPAB, Registrar, Registrar, Plaintiff, sec, Sections 28, IPAB, IPAB, IPAB, Suit, Suit, the State of Maharashtra, Registrar, IPAB, the civil Court, Registrar, Registrar, IPAB, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Court, Registrar, IPAB, The Civil Court, the Trade Marks Act, The Statement of Objects, Appellate Board, High Courts, inter alia, zb, The Register of Trade Marks –, the Register of Trade Marks, the Trade Marks Registry, The Register of Trade Marks, Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, the Registrar of Trade Mark, the Registrar of Trade marks, Registrar, Registrar, Registration”, Registrar, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Appellate Board, the Registrar of Trade Marks, the Appellate Board, Registrar, the Appellate Board, Registrar, the Appellate Board, Registrar, the Appellate Board, Property Appellate Board, Board, the Appellate Board, “Miscellaneous”, Registrar, the Appellate Board, the Appellate Board, Appellate Board, the Appellate Board, Registrar, Registrar, Registrar, Appellate, District Court, District Court, the Registrar of Trade Marks, IPAB, the Appellate Board, the Appellate Board, the Central Government, the Trade Marks Rules, the Central Government, the Appellate Board, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the Trade Marks Act, the Trade Marks Act, the “1958 Act”, Trade Mark”, Trade Mark”, “if valid”. However, Court, Registrar, State, Court, State, Registrar, “if valid”. However, the Trade Marks Act, the Trade Marks Act, Registrar, the High Court, earlier High Court, the Registrar of Trade Marks, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, a Civil Court, the Civil Court, the Civil Court, the Appellate Board, the Civil Court, the Civil Court, Court, Civil Court, the Appellate Board, Sections 28, the Trade Marks Act, the High Court, The High Court, the District Court, a High Court, the Appellate Board, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the Civil Court, the High Court, the Civil Court/High Court, Court, Court, the Appellate Board, the Civil Court, the Civil Court, Court, the Appellate Board, the Civil Court, the Civil Court, Court, Court, the Civil Court, Court, Court, Court, the Civil Court, Court, the Appellate Board, the Civil Court, the Appellate Board, Sections, Court, District Court, Court, State, Registrar, Court, Madras High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Gujrat High Court, Court, Court, Vimadalal, Hindustan Embroidery Mills, K. Ravindra and Co., LXXVI Bom, Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., J., Vimadalal, J., Court”, Court, J., Court, Court, Court, the English Courts, Court, Plaintiff, the Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal (IPAT, the Trade Marks Act, the Civil Court, Defendants, Court, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Court, Plaintiff, Delhi High Court, N.R. Dongre v., M/s Chinar Trust, M/s Chinar Trust, WHIRLPOOL, the M/s Chinar Trust, Appeal, Delhi High Court, the Apex Court, Single Judge, Division, Delhi High Court, the Apex Court, Court, The Apex Court, The Apex Court, Court, Court, Plaintiff, Sections 28, the Trade Marks Act, Committees, the Shavaksha Committee, Justice Rajgopal Ayyangar Committee, Court, Committee, Malar Network, Parle Products Ltd., Bakemans Industries Ltd.(1998 PTC, Sons, Persumery Works, Gujrat High Court, Regency Sanitary Ware Pvt. Ltd., Madhusudan Industries Ltd, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Co., Firm of Police Mallaih, AP, the Bombay High Court, Court, Milment Oftho Industries, SC, Allergan Inc., Ofloxacin, CIPROFLOXACIN, the Division Bench, the High Court, Milment, the Supreme Court, N.R. Dongre, Whirlpool Corporation, Cadila Health Care Ltd., Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd., SC, the Supreme Court, Court, Court, Applicant, Court, Respondents, Indian Company, the Indian Company, Respondents, Respondents, Division, Milment Oftho Industries, Allergen Inc., the Supreme Court, Court, Plaintiff, the Registrar of Trade Marks, Plaintiff, the Civil Court, the Appellate Board, the Civil Court, Plaintiff, Court, Defendants, Corn Products Refining Company, Shangrila Foods Products Limited, the Supreme Court, Lowenbrau AG, Jagpin Breweries Ltd., LOWEN BRAU AG, Court, the Delhi High Court, P.M. Diesels Pvt, Thukral Mechanical Works, Court, Court, Sections 28, Registrar, Gufic Ltd., Clinique Laboratories, Delhi High Court, Court

CARDINAL: 1, 2, two, one, 47, 3., 16Statutory, 23Legislative, 43Discussion.44, 54Case, 57Further, 4, two, five, almost 70, “LUCYNTA”, “LUCYNTA”, “LUCYNTA”, “LUCYNTA”, “LUCYNTA”, “LUCYNTA”, 5, 30, 6., 15, 16, 16, 300, 7, 100, 124, 125, 124, 125, 36, two, 124, two, 8, 3, one, two, 8, 31, one, three, 9, 64, 107, 13, 18 to 23, one, 10, one, 1, 2, 6, 7, 1, one, 2, 12, 13 to 17, 11, 12, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, two, 29, 1, 2, 9, 1, 2, 13, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 5, 60, 14, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 4, 1, 2, 5, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 5, 1, 28, 28, 111, 29, 2, 3, two, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 47, 24, 2(w, 124, 125, 111, 124, 5, 5, 25, 26, 27, 28, 1, 5, 29, 134, 135, 30, 31, 32, two, 33, 34, 35, 36, 16, 38, one, 39, 40, 2, 828, One, 18, 45, 140, 41, 28, 585, one, 10, 39, 627, 282, 14, 124, 16, 124, 45, 43, 2, 4, one, two

DATE: 13 August 2012, 16 February 2005, 2005, 2004, 2011, 2012, 1956, 2012, June 2010, 20 August 2010, 18 October 2010, 28 March 2011, 8 August 2011, 9 March 2012, October 2011, 12 July 2012, 1931, 2012, 4 July 2012, 2 September 2011, 2008, 13th August, 2012, 2012, 2001, 31, 57, 93, 28, 31, 35, 1971, 2000, 2000, 1911, 1970, 2000, 1999, 57, 1958, 1940, 1958, 1970, 1999, 11, 31, 1908, 1999, 1999, 1999, 1991, 1950, four months, 18 months, ten years, 58, 59, a period of, three months, 2002, 2003, 1999, 1958, 1940, 1958, 1946, 1946, 1946, 1958, 1958, 1940, 1940, 1958, 1958, 1999, 1958, seven years, seven years, a period of, three months, 57, 28, 31, 57, 1999, 31, 1958, 1999, three months, Section 31, 1999, 1940, 1946, 1958, 1967, Kerly, 16.2.2005)referred, 1996, 37, 2000, 1911, 1970, 1999, 2011, 2011, 2001, 1961, September 1992, September 1993, December 1996, January 1997, 2001, 42, 44, 2009, 1988, 2010, 1999

PERSON: B.R. Gavai, Appeal No.88, Para Nos, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, Lupin Limited, Johnson, Johnson, copier, copier, B.R. Gavai, Abdul Cadur Allibhoy, Moahomedally Hyderally, Virendra Tulzapurkar, “if valid”, Ravi Kadam, Dhond, “if valid”, “if, “if, “if, “if valid”, Tulzapurkar, Bill, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, ¦, shall,-, ¦, ¦, Reference, “if, “if, “if valid”, “if valid”, “if, “if, Reasons, “if, Bill, DISCUSSION, Tulzapurkar, “if, “if, facie, facie, facie, facie, L.R., Vimadalal J., Vimadalal J., Kadam, Kerly, Tulzapurkar, “if valid”, Whirpool Corpn, TVS WHIRLPOOL, Tulzapurkar, Tulzapurkar, Arun Prasath, publicia juris, publicia juris, N. Ranga Rao, AR Gangadhara, Appellants, Biscuits”, Anr, Anr, Refer

LOC: Single, Single, British India, British India, Trademarks, Single, Europe, South America, Single

GPE: J.K., Mumbai, New Jersey, USA, India, ‘NUCYNTA, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, Sections, India, India, Vimadalal, Maxheal, England, Single, Tamil, Allergan, Allergan, Allergan, Allergan, Allergan, Australia, South Africa, Australia, South Africa, Canada, USA, India, Allergan, Allergan, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, Germany, Germany, AIR, Del., Single

NORP: Indian, Indian, cases.-, Indian, Indian, British, British, Indian, British, Indian, Indian, British, British, British, British, British, Trademarks, Gujarat, Indian

ORDINAL: first, second, first, Second, First, first, third, Firstly, secondly, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, third

PRODUCT: 898, the Full Bench, Registrar, Suits

TIME: the earlier Act i.e., 91 of the Act

FAC: Registrar, Vimadalal

EVENT: the 1999 Act, Sections 28