Advanced Search Results

Assam Roofing Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Jsb Cement Llp and Anr.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Intellectual Property

in Class 19 are not only in violation of the statutory rights conferred on the petitioner under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copy Right Act, 1957 but also constitute the tort of passing off. The petitioners further contended … for the sum due on such enquiry. The petitioners further prayed before this Court that by virtue of Section 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, pass ex parte order against the respondents, preventing them from manufacturing,

Acme Pharmaceuticals Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 10(1), 13, 29, 30(2) and 50; Companies Act - Sections 391 and 394; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 43, Rule 1;

Reported in : LC2010(1)217

on prima facie basis, it is necessary to have a close look at certain statutory provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 9 deals with absolute grounds for refusal of registration and Section 9(1)(a) says that the Trade Marks which

Glaxo Group Ltd.and anr Vs. Mr.S.D.Garg and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Copyright Act - Section 2(c); Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 28

if any, incurred by it on promoting these products and building the brand name BECNATE.14. Section 28 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 gives exclusive rights to its registered proprietor, to the use of the trademark in relation to the goods … opportunity to compare the two marks.19. In Glaxo Group Limited & Others vs. Vipin Gupta and Ors.2006(33) PTC 145 (Del.), the plaintiff- company was granted injunction by this Court against use of the mark BETAVAT by the

S. Sudhakar and Vs. S.S.P. Durairaj (Firm) and

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade marks Act, 1999 - Sections 20 and 21

Reported in : LC2007(2)247; 2008(36)PTC150(Mad)

Matched in: Advocate Sathish Parasaran, Adv. in O.A. Nos. 145 to 147 of 2007 and ;T.V. Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for P.C.N. Raghupathy, Adv. in A. Nos. 1960 to 1965 of 2007 T.V. Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for ;P.C.N. Raghupathy, Adv. in A. Nos. 145 to 147 of 2007 ;and Sathish Parasaran, Adv. in A. Nos.1960 to 1965 of 2007

The Tabocco Institute of India Vs. Union of India

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

19 AND THAT IT IS NOT SAVED BY ARTICLE304OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND IS CONTRARY TO THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 AND/OR THE LEGAL METROLOGY (PACKAGED COMMODITES) RULES, 2011, & ETC. WRIT PETITION NO.35717/2016 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 … including pictorial warnings, production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products, is prohibited as per Section 7(1). Even carrying on of trade or commerce in cigarettes and other tobacco products is also prohibited, unless … Speaker and entrusted with the function to scrutinize and report to the 145 House whether delegated legislative powers are being properly exercised within the limits

Sauss Home Products Private Limited vs Reckitt Benckiser India Private ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

India in 1936.9. The respondent is admittedly the proprietor of the followingtrademarks, registered under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act 1999: Sl. Registration Date of Registration Trade Mark Class No. No. 1 2533 25 July 1942 03 2 258133 … * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025, CM APPL. 60016/2025 & CM APPL. 75892/2025 SAUSS HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr.

Coromandel Fertilisers Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)90ITD344(Hyd.)

An undertaking consists of various assets like goodwill, brand name, licences, man-power and such other intangible assets like trade marks, mining rights etc. and it does not mean the sale consideration can be allocated to separate assets simply … brought in the necessary amendment under Section 43(6) (c) (i) (C) with effect from 1.4.2000 by the Finance Act, 1999. Section 43(6) (c) (i) (C) provides for the decrease, in a slump sale, of the w.d.v. of the assets … to the transfer of depreciable assets, simply by some process of estimation or by invoking the. provisions of Section 145. It is pleaded that the conclusions drawn in so many cases decided by the Apex Court would have

Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

erred in dissecting the marks into parts rather than assessing them holistically, contrary to settled principles of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [‘Act’]. They further contend that earlier judicial findings at multiple stages, including the Trial Court, Appellate Court, had … deceptively similar? 139 - 144 IX. Authorities cited by the Respondent are 145 - 151 distinguishable, both on facts and in law X. No public … II. Respondent’s overbroad plaint to claim 27 - 39 infringement and this Court’s delineation of the dispute to Section 29(2)(b) of the Act III. Legal standard governing ‘likelihood of 40 - 61 confusion’ where goods are not

Shakti Electricals (P) Ltd., Vs. New Shakti Radios and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

to proceed for registration. The Honble High Court of Delhi has, in pursuance of section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, transferred the said appeal, being C.M. (M) No. 133 of 2003 on its file, to the Intellectual Property … Appellate Board in Sushil Jindal Trading as M/s. Sushil Electricals v. Jindal Electricals and Anr., 2008 (37) PTC 145 (IPAB) to submit that a mere concurrent use is not sufficient for the purpose of section 12 of

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Mr. Biju and anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Trade Marks

Acts : Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 11, 29(1)

the trademark of the plaintiff company without any permission or authorization from the plaintiff company.9. Section 29(1) of Trade Marks Act, 1999, to the extent it is relevant, provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who,