Advanced Search Results

Hemantkumar Ptilokani and Others Vs. The State rep. by its the Deputy ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

Subject : Education

2015 to quash the charge sheet, filed by the 1st respondent under Section 103 (a)(c)(e) and 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and under Sections 420, 482, 485, 486, 109 IPC in C.C.No.242 of 215 before the learned Judicial Magistrate

Shyam Singh Vs. State rep. By the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ce ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

Subject : Education

from the Registrar had quashed the petition in respect of offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and in respect of the offences under Sections 51(b) r/w. Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and

Ultratech Cement Limited and Another Vs. Shree Balaji Cement Industrie ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property

11 Del.676). 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the Defendants that Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (œthe Act?) enables a registered proprietor of a trademark to institute a suit for infringement in a District

Vishvajeet Sharma and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 15, 15(2) and 63; Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2 and 2(1); Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 27, 103 and 104; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 156(3) and 482; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2009(41)PTC484(Del)

of the complaint, the complainant's trademark registration applications were pending. Therefore, in terms of Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 no action could be initiated against the Petitioner No. 2 for infringement of the unregistered trade mark. Therefore, … of the unregistered trade mark. Therefore, the IO correctly came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act was not attracted in this case. The IO then proceeded to compare the

Lakshmi Packaging, Indu Kirana and General Merchant Represented by Its ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

the DSP, Khammam stating that the appellants have committed an offence under sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Registry of this Appellate Board had raised an objection as to … shall be no order as to costs. Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) - Section 103 and Section 104 -

KSB Aktiengesellschaft and Another Vs. Anil Agarwal

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

members of the public into believing that the Defendant is in some way connected/ associated with the Plaintiffs." Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29 Entitlement to Relief Application is filed for reliefs in both infringement and passing off Plaintiffs restricts her … Shakdher of the Delhi High Court in KSB Aktiengesellschaft and Ors. v KSB Global Limited, 2011 (45) PTC 103 (Del.). This was a final order in the Suit. After noticing the factual matrix, Mr. Justice Shakdher held

Shyam Singh Vs. Manohar Singh and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

trade mark Singh, Singh Mehandi Industries registered under No. 1171825 in class 3 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The applicant is a leading manufacturer of Mehandi powder and cone … carrying on business in the name of “Raju Singh”. 8. The 1st respondent instituted a false compliant under Sections 103 and 104 of the Act against the applicant. In this connection, the Central Crime Branch sought for

M/S. Rana Steels, (a Unit of M/S. K.K. Steels Limited,) Vs. M/S. Ran I ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

No.1005663 in class 19 from the register of trade marks under sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The applicant M/s. K.K. Steels Limited is a company incorporated under … k) the respondents impugned trade mark is a false description within the meaning of section 2(1)(i) read with section 103 of the Act. l) the impugned trade mark is likely to cause confusion and deception among the public.

Sri. Manjunatha M. S. Vs. State By Arsikere Town Police

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

not acceptable since the F.I.R., is registered for the offence punishable under Section 102(i)(a)(b) r/w. 103(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. On further reading of the entire materials, a prima facie has been made out as against the petitioner.

Vinod Kumar Choudhary and Anr Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : MRTP

which was instituted under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). The prosecution story as it would appear from the F.I.R