Advanced Search Results

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 … Suit in Delhi. The Defendants will have to meet the observations made in Dhodha House in these words: 49. In Patel Field Marshal (supra) again the thrust was on the sale of products and/or advertisement by the

Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Intellectual Property App ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2, 3, 18, 21, 21(1), 21(2), 21(4), 21(7), 25, 25(1), 57, 91 and 131; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; Limitation Act - Sections 4 to 24 and 29(2); Kerala Rent Control Act - Sections 18; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34(3); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 47, Rule 1; Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rule 53 and 53(2); Trade Marks Rules, 2002 - Rule 53

Reported in : AIR2009Mad196

the registration of a trade mark to be given beyond the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 2. In other words, this writ petition raises the question as to whether the Registrar of Trade Marks … have been abandoned. Only as far as the evidence upon which the parties are relying upon is concerned Sub-section (4) of Section 21 provides that it shall be submitted in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time.

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Ucb

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2(1), 21, 21(1), 21(2), 21(4), 101, 131, 131(1) and 157; Trade Marks Rules, 2002 - Rules 47 to 57, 79, 80(4), 101, 105, 105(1) and 106; Trade Marks Rules, 1959 - Rule 53(1) and 53(2); Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rules 53, 53(2), 54 and 56

Reported in : 2005(31)PTC14(Guj)

of one month from 22.9.2003 to 21.10.03 by filing a request on Form TM-56 dated 22.9.2003. However, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was implemented with immediate effect from 15.9.2003. The opponent filed the second request for extension of time for … proceedings in all fairness and can be taken on record in exercise of discretion of this tribunal under Section 131 of the Act. He prayed that affidavit of Mr. Allen Norris filed alongwith exhibits be taken on … 22.10.2003 to 21.11.2003, whereas the second was refused vide official letter dated 4.12.2003. Mr. Rethnam contended that Interlocutory petition was filed on 22.12.2003 within a

Samsung Electronics Company Limited and Another Vs. Kapil Wadhwa and O ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

plaintiffs to India amounts to infringement of the trade mark within the meaning of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. In this context, Mr. Anand has read and relied on Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 … proprietor to oppose further dealings in the product u/s 30(4). It is also to be noticed that sub section 4 of section 30 uses the expression “….where there exists legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further dealings

Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. M.S.S. Food Products

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4 - Order 43, Rule 1 - Order 41, Rule 27; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 27 and 39; Constitution of India - Article 136

Reported in : AIR2005SC1999; 2005(3)AWC2934(SC); 2005(2)BLJR929; JT2005(2)SC505; (2005)2MLJ139(SC); 2005(30)PTC233(SC); (2005)3SCC63; (2005)2UPLBEC1111; 2005AIRSCW1241

lower appellate court with the permission of that court while considering this interlocutory appeal.6. Section 27 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that nothing in that Act shall be deemed to affect the right of action against any person … The defendants appeared and filed their objections. They also filed an application, I.A. No.5/2004, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the C.P.C. seeking to get vacated the ad- interim injunction granted by the trial court. Various documents

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 Mercedes … statutory protection in 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

T.V. Venugopal Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd, and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights And Constitution

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 45(1) ; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 159(4) ; Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 46, 21 - Rule 24(3) ; Constitution of India - Section 136 ; Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 22 ; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 2 Rule 2(3) ;

case the suit was in fact governed by Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and not by the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which came into force w.e.f. 15.9.2003. It was submitted that this case is covered under section 159(4) of

Lupin Ltd. and Another Vs. Johnson and Johnson and Another

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property

and the Designs Act there is no provision similar to the provision contained in Section 31(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This is one more instance to show that the legislature did not intend that the question of validity … was raised at an interlocutory stage (J.K. sons v/s. Parksons Games and Sports and anr. 2011 (47) PTC 443 (Bom). The conflict also appears in a series of judgments of this Court on the one hand holding

S.M.K.A. Enterprises Vs. Suchita Industries

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 115 and 115(4); Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2; Trade Marks Rules, 1999

Reported in : 2008(2)KarLJ285; 2007(6)AIRKarR433; 2008AIHC521(Kar)

'Tiny care' registered under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and thereafter under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The process for having the trade mark registered is a long drawn process and after undergoing the same … similar to that of the plaintiffs trade mark 'Tiny care' vide Nos. 477911B, dated 7-9-1987 and 318182B, dated 31-8-1976. The plaintiff has also further prayed … the suit filed an application in LA. No. I under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking for temporary injunction in terms of the main prayer. The

Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. and anr. Vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 19, 23, 27(2), 28, 28(2), 28(3), 30, 30(1), 30(2), 33, 107, 124, 125, 144 and 154; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 111 and 111(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4

Reported in : 2006(32)PTC733(Del)

back to the date of the application which is 2nd August, 2004 Perusal of the provision of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 demonstrate that the registration of the trade mark will relate back to the date of the application. Section … alleged to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark 'MERONEM' and defendant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to vacate the interim order dated 6th October, 2005