Advanced Search Results

Kapil Wadhwa and Others Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Another

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

the defendants being the appellants before us in an intra-Court appeal. The port of destination: 5. Whether the Trade Marks Act 1999 embodies the International Exhaustion Principle or the National Exhaustion Principle when the registered proprietor of a Trade Mark … embodies the National Exhaustion Principle. The lighthouses seen by the learned Single Judge while chartering the voyage: 7. Section 29 and Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 fell for consideration and interpretation. They read as … Trade Mark can be lawfully acquired in that country alone. (Refer paragraph 68 of the impugned decision with reference to the discussion in paragraph 48

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Concord Enviro Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property

costs. Place the suit before the regular Court for directions on 12th July, 2016 on the Supplementary Board. Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29 (4) Infringement of trademarks Grant of reliefs Plaintiff claimed injunctive reliefs on basis of infringement of Plaintiff's … by some significant detail, than by any photographic recollection of the whole (De Cordoa vs. Vick Chemical (1951) 68 RPC 103 at 106). 2.12 That if the impugned mark contains a feature which is a striking feature,

Choice Hotels International Inc Vs. M Sanjay Kumar and Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

promotes the trademark COMFORT INN. Also, COMFORT INN as a trademark had been applied for registration to the Trade Marks Registry by the plaintiff and the objection period of 4 months thereunder had expired in June, 2010. Therefore, … present case, we are dealing with a statutory right based on the provisions of the trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. An exclusive right is granted by the registration to the holder of a registered trade mark. We … Plaintiff has not filed copy of the entry in register as required under Section 137 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to prove its registration.13. Further, the defendants are carrying on their business … a shop."(v) In De Cordova and Ors. v. Vick Chemical Cov. (1951) 68 R.P.C. 103, the Privy Council while considering whether the mark 'Karsote Vapour

Walter Bushnel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mankind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

Matched in: Judge K.N. Basha, Chairman &Amp; the Honourable Mr. V. Ravi, Technical Member (Trade Marks)

Dabur India Limited Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

been selling the Shilajit Gold product since 2006, however, in its own application for Shilajit Gold, before the Trade Marks Registry, being application No. 1941993, the Plaintiff has claimed that the date of first use of the said … also covered under the common law remedy i.e. law of passing off. Even in the New Trade Mark Act 1999 the definition of the mark is given in Section 2(m) which says that “Mark” include a device, brand, … to establish that a scheme of colouring applied to goods may be a mark within the definition in section 68. That definition as was pointed out in contrast to other definitions in the Act, starts with the word

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another versus Karanveer Sin ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property

Reported in : [2025] 8 S.C.R. 805

Balance Of Convenience; Irreparable Harm; Injurious Association; Initial Interest Confusion; Goodwill; Reputation; Secondary Meaning; Well-Known Trademark; Statutory Framework; Trade Marks Act 1999; Section 28 Rights; Section 29 Infringement; Section 135 Remedies; Judicial Precedents; Comparative Advertising; Phonetic Similarity; Visual Similarity; Structural Similarity; … H.L. (E) 1890, June 19. Vol. XV, App. Cas. page 252; Aristoc Ltd v. Rysta Ltd., 1945 AC 68 (House of Lords); Pianotist Co. Ltd’s Application (1906) 23 RPC 774 at p. 777; American Cyanamid Co. v.

Sanofi Aventis vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

mark CLAVIX does not infringe the plaintiff’s registered mark PLAVIX, as a result of Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999? OPD5. Whether the defendant is the prior and/ or bona fide user of the mark CLAVIX for medicinal … also by the name of the manufacturer. It is common in the automobile trade that2025 SCC OnLine Del 68 MISHRA CS(COMM) 120/2016 Page 27 of 64the cars are identified by the manufacturer’s name along with the model

Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lokranjan Breweries Pvt. Lt ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

infringers, the plaintiffs could not maintain an action in infringement. Parksons does not consider Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the 1999 Act”), a contest between rival registrants: Sn. 28.-Rights conferred by registration (1) Subject to the other

Raymond Limited Vs. Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

said judgment are to the effect that the provisions of Section 29(4) came to be introduced in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in order to extend the protection available in an action for infringement and it would not be a … sales are reported to be in excess of Rs.218 Crores. The Plaintiffs claim to have spent approximately Rs. 68.58 Lakhs in 2014 alone for advertising and promoting their products in diverse media including newspapers, television, commercials, etc

M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers Vs. Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

Dass Khanna. The defendants use of the mark is subsequent to that of the plaintiff.58. Section 29 of Trade Marks Act 1999 provides for an infringement of the trade mark. In the said Section, sub section 29(5) provides for the