Advanced Search Results

Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr. vs Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

in the Plaintiffs9 trademark registration. In support of this argument, reliance was placed on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which grants exclusive rights to the registered proprietor of a mark, to contend that the Plaintiffs could … they contend that no infringement can be established if both marks are registered under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act.Impugned Order23. The learned Commercial Court made the following findings:(i) The Defendants cannot claim that 8Jiva9 is a common

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba Trading as Toshiba Corp. Vs. Mr. S.K.Sil and ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Trade Marks

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 29(4)

quality. 10. Well known marks and trans-border reputation of brands was recognized by Courts in India, even before Trade Marks Act, 1999 came into force. In Daimler Benz. Akietgesellschaft v. Hybo Hindustan, AIR 1994 Del 239, the manufacturers of … the Trademarks Act, 1999, irrespective of whether it is an Indian mark or foreign mark. Section 29(4) of Trade Marks Act, 1999, which is relevant in this regard, reads as under:- 29(4) A registered trade mark is infringed by

M/S Brilloca Ltd vs Grohe India Pvt Ltd & Ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIReserved on: 26th February, 2026 Pronounced on: 22nd May, 2026 + CS(COMM) 591/2017 HINDWARE LTD. .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Manav Gupta, Mr. Sahil Garg, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr....

S.R. Thorat Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sahyadri Dairy

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 27; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR327; 2003(27)PTC176(Bom)

Company was incorporated much later in 1998 and an application for the registration of the mark under the Trade Marks Act was made on 11th September, 2000. The learned Trial Judge was of the view that the delay of … Company was incorporated much later in 1998 and an application for the registration of the mark under the Trade Marks Act was made on 11th September, 2000. The learned Trial Judge was of the view that the delay of

indchemic Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naxpar Labs Pvt. Ltd. and ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Mark and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2, 28, 31 and 111

Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR431; 2002(3)MhLJ744

impugnedmark CHERISH of the defendants is deceptivelysimilar to the plaintiffs registered Trade MarkCHERI under Sec. 2(d) of the Trade Marks Act whichprovides that the mark shall be deemed to bedeceptively similar to another mark if it so nearlyresembles that … take into consideration the pendency of theapplication for rectification. Secondly, in view ofSections 28 and 111 of the Trade Marks Act, theCourt is not debarred from granting interim reliefswhich necessarily mentions that the Court must takeinto consideration the merits

Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Rep. by Its Vice Preside ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 30 to 34; Copy Right Act, 1957 - Sections 62(2) and 134(2); Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Reported in : LC2009(2)264; 2009(41)PTC597(Mad)

No. 437 of 2008 to reject the plaint, in view of the provisions under Section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act, where the proprietor of a trade mark cannot file a suit for infringement of a registered trade mark … such a suit against another registered proprietor of a trade mark in terms of Section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?(4) Whether the appellant is entitled to interim injunction restraining the respondent in respect of passing off?12. Point

Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company Limited Vs. the Rajasthan Navsagar M ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 11, 12(1), 12(3) and 18(1)

Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR162; (2002)1BOMLR812; 2002(25)PTC372(Bom)

Mr. Dinesh Mehta, Secretary of the Petitioners. The parties were heard on 19.9.1991 by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. The 6th respondent, the Registrar of Trade Marks has dealt with various objections raised by the Petitioners herein. … Court. (i) Intellectual Property Rights - goods of same description - Section 12 (1) of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - respondent applied for registration of trade mark 'Streamer Brand' for ammonium chloride bars - petitioner filed

Consolidated Foods Corporation Vs. Brandon and Company Private Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2, 11, 12(3), 18(1) and 109; Food Products Order, 1955 - Sections 8(1)

Reported in : AIR1965Bom35; (1964)66BOMLR612

Shah for the purpose of showing that powers can be exercised by the Court in appeal under the Trade Marks Act. The passage from the judgment of Farewell .....on which Mr. Shah relied, is as follows (p. 148):'There is … to this Court from the decision of the Registrar. That is provided for by section 8 of the Trade Marks Act, 1919. It is also perfectly clear on the authorities that the decision of the Registrar or the Assistant

D. Adinarayana Setty Vs. Brooke Bond Tea of India Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Mysore Trade Marks Act, 1944 - Sections 8, 10(1) and 10(2)

Reported in : AIR1960Kant142; AIR1960Mys142

respondents but continued to use his mark and himself applied for registration under the provisions of the Mysore Trade Marks Act of 1944 on 30-6-1947. The appellant did not enter any opposition against the claim for registration made by … Bangalore, they did not amend their opposition by invoking the provisions of sub-section(1) of S. 10 of the Trade Marks Act. Nevertheless the Registrar on his own, and as he was entitled and bound to, considered the case of

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laborato ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Media and CommunicationIntellectual Property Rights

Acts : Indian Trade Marks Act, 1940 - Sections 6, 6(1), 6(2), 6(3), 10(2), 13, 20, 20(1), 20(2), 21, 46 and 46(2); Cochin Trade Marks Act, 1199 (1944) - Sections 78-A; The Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 1946 - Sections 82-A; Common Law

Reported in : AIR1965SC980; [1965]1SCR737

a declaration of ownership before the Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta. When a legislation substantially similar to the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1940 was enacted in the State of Cochin [Vide the Cochin Trade Marks Act 19 of 1199 (1944)] … similar to the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1940 was enacted in the State of Cochin [Vide the Cochin Trade Marks Act 19 of 1199 (1944)] the respondent-firm registered the word 'Navaratna' as a Trade Mark in respect of its