Advanced Search Results

M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : MRTP

and unequivocally that ‘Indian Law’ means only Indian Legislations and not the common law as such.. (ii). The Trade Marks Act, 1999 only governs and regulates registered trade marks and not unregistered trade marks which are not governed by any … in the notice along with imposition of penalties.   Hence, the present  appeal. 5. We have heard Shri S. Ganesa, Sr.Advocate  appearing  for the Appellants along … of Rs.87,70,372 and Education Cess of Rs.1,75,407 against the appellant along with  interest and imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. As per

B. Mohamed Yousuff Vs. Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh, Rep. by Its Power o ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 11, 12, 12(2), 25, 25(1), 25(2), 25(3), 30(2), 38, 42, 45, 45(1), 46, 47, 47(1), 50, 56, 57, 57(1), 57(2), 83, 84, 92, 93, 107, 108(3), 109(2), 109(4), 109(5), 124, 124(1), 124(2) to 124(5) and 125; Administrative Tribunals Act - Sections 28; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 108(2), 108(3), 109(4), 109(5), 111 and 111(1)(B); Trade Marks Rules, 2002 - Rules 4, 6, 7, 63(1), 64(3) and 66; Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003 - Rule 16; Constitution of India - Articles 32, 226, 227, 323A and 323B; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 100

Reported in : LC2007(1)107

respectively. 3. Since the parties hereto have wielded against one another, almost all the weapons available under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such as (i) opposition for registration, (ii) Assignment (iii) appeals and review petitions before the Appellate Board, (iv) … with the full name and address of their firm in prominent feature on the label, sticker etc., under Section 12 of the Act without any territorial restriction. But in respect of the Kangayam party, the Assistant Registrar … hence entered into a Deed of Assignment with the Delhi party on 5-10-2004. Simultaneously, the Kangayam party filed Review Petitions in R.P. No. 2, 3

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 … Astra AB and Zeneca, plaintiff No. 1 became the assignee of registered trade mark 'MERONEM' bearing registration No. 532328 in class 5 in India from Zeneca Limited. Zeneca Ltd. had obtained the registration in its name on

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federat ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 2004 - Sections 5 and 7; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 9, 19, 29, 30 and 35; Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule - Rule 47

Reported in : 2009(41)PTC336(Del)

which may be used in a descriptive sense is not considered distinctive as per Section 19(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the TM Act). iv. The judgment in the case of Baby Dry (supra) is … Oxford Dictionary, wherein it was submitted that no such word is found. Reliance was further placed on Sections 5(iv) and 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act') read with

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 … trademark, passing off, damages etc. Plaintiff has sought the reliefs as prayed for in the suit, vide para 54 (a) of the plaint, by pleading exclusive ownership of its registered trademarks „RED SOLE‟ under the registration nos.1922048,

Pfizer Products Inc. Vs. Rajesh Chopra and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 2(1), 2(2), 30(2), 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 38(2), 47, 47(1), 124, 124(1) and 124(5); Trademark and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2(2), 18, 46, 46(1), 46(3), 47, 107, 111, 111(1) and 111(5); Trade Marks Registration Act, 1875 - Sections 12(3); Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 17B; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20 - Order 7, Rules 10 and 11 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : LC2007(2)323; 2007(35)PTC59(Del)

their plea of the invalidity of the registration of the mark of the Defendant. Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is similar to the Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Under the Trade and … it applied for registration of the trademark 'Zoloft' in India on the 18th of November, 1992 in class 5 under the Schedule to the Trademark & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. This trademark has been registered by the

Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ajanta India Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2, 12, 29(5), 30(2) and 33; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rule 4

Reported in : 154(2008)DLT167; LC2008(3)7; 2008(38)PTC83(Del)

granted by this Court in their red herring prospectus. Mr. Arun Jaitley relied on Section 2(m) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 which defines the word 'mark' to contend that it includes a corporate name. Mr. Arun Jaitley further submitted … Single Judge who had decided Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. v. Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd. : 2002 (25) PTC 563, and indeed was accepted by the Defendant/Respondent....14. In our view, concurrent user and acquiescence can constitute a legitimate

Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Pernod Ricard S.A. France an ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 9(1), 11, 11(1), 11(2), 12, 28, 28(3), 34, 91, 92(2), 93, 124 and 124(5); Trade Marks Act, 1940 - Sections 10(2)

Reported in : 166(2010)DLT12

statutory power of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), to which an Appeal against a registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ('TM Act' for short) has been provided for in Section 124. Section 124 of the TM Act has … prefix would invariably result in distinguishing the rival products.14. S.M. Dychem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. : (2000) 5 SCC 573 is pressed into support by learned Counsel for the Defendants. In that case the Plaintiffs used

Thaikkudam Bridge, vs Hombale Films,(Deleted)

Court : Kerala

arising for consideration was as to the interpretation of Section 62 of the Act and Section 134(2) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 with regard to places where a suit can be instituted by the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel … BALACHANDRAN VIVEK NAIR P. M.UMA DEVI(K/591/1994) RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS/PETITIONER:1 HOMBALE FILMS,(DELETED) 2ND FLOOR, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, OPPOSITE ORION MALL, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE- 560010, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, VIJAY KIRGANDUR. 2 MR.RISHABH SHETTY, (DELETED) DIRECTOR AND ACTOR, WG72 + 347, BEML LAYOUT,

Liberty Footwear Company Vs. Force Footwear Company and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 83, 91(1), 92, 92(2), 92(3), 93, 100, 220(6), 254 and 255(5); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 148 and 149; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 193, 196 and 228; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 195; Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 7; Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003 - Rule 14 and 14(1)

Reported in : 2009(41)PTC474(Del)

which empowers this Appellate Board to condone such delay.3. IPAB has been constituted under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short) and is a quasi judicial tribunal which exercises power as an … Harjiwan Bhate v. Emperor : AIR 1940 Nag. 390 follwing Narasingh Das v. Mangal Dubey ILR 1882 All 583. Further quasi judicial tribunals have ancillary and incidental powers to ensure that there is effective adjudication and decision.