Advanced Search Results

Sab Miller India Ltd. Vs. M.P. Beer Products Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property

conferred upon this Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, Bombay, but under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (œthe Act?), this Court cannot combine the cause of action for passing off with the cause of action … injunction restraining the Respondent (Original Defendant) from infringing the registered trademarks bearing Nos.436744 and/or 1521743 both in Class 32. Along with the Plaint, the Plaintiff filed the above Petition No.885 of 2011 seeking leave of this Court

Christian Louboutin Sas vs.abubaker & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

suit. In CS(COMM) No.890/2018 Page 16 of 47 order to decide this aspect the following provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 would be relevant:-"“Section 2(m) "mark" includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape … the registered proprietor or his predecessor in title as to have become distinctive at the date of registration. Section 32. Protection of registration on ground of distinctiveness in certain cases.- Where a trade mark is registered in breach

M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Sales Tax

Act, 1981 - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 2(m), Section 2(zb), Section 28, Section 28(1), Section 30(2), Section 32 and Section 33 - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Patent Act, 1970 - Hire purchase agreement … of the trade mark or patent or a person entitled to a use thereof in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He submits that the object and purpose sought to be achieved by the Trade Marks Act, 1999 must

Fmi Limited Vs. Ashok JaIn and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Mark Act, 1999 - Sections 2, 28, 29, 31 and 32; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 29; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2

Reported in : 136(2007)DLT668; LC2007(1)157; 2007(34)PTC66(Del)

31 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, registration is a prima facie evidence which cannot be challenged under Section 32 of the Act. learned Counsel for the plaintiff also referred to the following judgments:(i) Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya … imperfect recollection. (See Kerly on Trade Mark, 8th edition, p.400). 10. The manner of comparison of the two trade marks as stated above was applied not only in that case but has been thereafter consistently applied in various … is likely to cause deception or confusion within the meaning of Section 29 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.In this connection, it is also necessary to consider the case of the appellant (plaintiff) that its cycles … in support of his plea relied upon the provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 as well as Section 2(m) thereof. Section 2(m) defines the term `mark' in the following manner:Section 2(m): `Mark'

Mylan Laboratories Limited vs.union of India & Ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

pendency and the non-functioning of the IPAB is owing to the stringent condition in Section 84 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 84(2) of the Act inter-alia states that a Bench of the IPAB „shall‟ consist of one Judicial Member … the same by filing an appeal along with a stay application before Intellectual W.P.(C) 5571/2019 Page 1 of 32 Property Appellate Board (IPAB) on 17th May, 2019. The petitioner has approached this Court for urgent hearing of

M/s.Maarg (India) Vs King Point Enterprise Co.Ltd.,

Court : Chennai

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,Sections 51, 55, 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 read with OrderIV Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original … HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY C.S. No.163 of 2018 & (T)OP(TM) No. 32 of 2023 C.S. No.163 of 2018 M/s. Maarg (India), No.194/3, Rasappa Street, … Registry, Anna Salai, Chennai. ...RespondentsPrayer in C.S.No.163 of 2018: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the

Ford Motor Company and anr. Vs. Mrs. C.R. Borman and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 11, 29, 29(1), 29(4), 134 and 134(2); Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 62(2); Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20 - Order 2 - Order 7, Rules 10 and 11

Reported in : 156(2009)DLT1; LC2008(3)418

has arisen within its jurisdiction. It has also been submitted by the Defendants that Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act for short) will only apply in respect of registered trademarks; that no actionable claim has arisen since … unfair advantage and is detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of the Plaintiffs' registered trademark FORD' (paragraph 32 of the Plaint) and that the 'Defendants' activities are undoubtedly motivated by mala fide as it is improbable

Paras Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and 2 ors.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 29, 29(4), 29(6), 29(7) and 29(8); Copyright Act; Trade Marks Act, 1994 - Sections 10(6) and 11(2); Consumer Credit Act, 1974; Consumer Credit Regulation, 1974; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 43, Rule 1; Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules, 1961

Reported in : AIR2008Guj94; (2008)3GLR1963; LC2008(2)395; 2008(38)PTC658(Guj)

manner, which amounts to an infringement of copyright, especially when the appellant is the registered proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He has further submitted that the respondents have used the mark without any license or permission from the … have used the mark without any license or permission from the appellant, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, the respondents are liable for infringement. In view of the provisions contained in Section

Astrazeneca Uk Limited and anr. Vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceutica ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 28, 29, 32, 124 and 124(5); Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 - Sections 2; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4

Reported in : LC2007(2)1; 2007(34)PTC469(Del)

the trade mark 'Meromer' there from and accordingly, the appellants/plaintiffs filed an application under Section 124((1)(b)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the learned Single Judge for stay of the suit in so far as the infringement action was … the appellants/plaintiffs' action for infringement is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 29 and Section 32(e) of the Trade Marks Act which provide inter alias that use of a mark by its registered proprietor

Radico Khaitan Limited Vs. Carlsberg India Private Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Section 151 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2; Companies Act, 1956; Trademarks Act, 1999 - Section 2 (m)

permanent injunction to restrain infringement, passing off, dilution and damages under Sections 29, 56 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF (a) The plaint states that the plaintiff has been continuously and extensively carrying … challenged by the defendant or any third party, thus it is a valid registration within the meaning of Section 32 of the Act and the court has to take the prima facie view of the validity of the