Advanced Search Results

Vizag Profiles Ltd. Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (Rinl), Popularl ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 17(2), 20(1), 21(1), 23(2), 33, 64, 66 and 73; Indian Trade Marks Act, 1940; Trade Marks Rules - Rules 47(1), 62(1), 131(1) and 138(1)

Reported in : 2009(5)ALT58

Notice of Opposition on 27-5-2005 under Sections 21(1), 64, 66, 73 and Rules 47(1), 131(1) and 138(1) of Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff became aware of the attempt to use the mark 'VIZAG' and symbol 'I' by the first … Registering authorities, they have published an advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1327 Supplement II January under Section 20(1) proviso as an advertisement before acceptance. On coming to know about the advertisement, the plaintiff filed Notice

Vardhman Properties Ltd. Vs. Vardhman Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

have obtained the registration of the trade name/mark 'VARDHAMAN PLAZAS' and Vardhman logo under Class 37 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in the year 2011. It is the case of the case of the plaintiff that it had come … final expression on merit. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, Section 151 Trademark Act, 1999 Section 17 Permanent Injunction Plaintiff prayed to restrain Defendants by using Mark/brand name VARDHMAN or VARDHMAN PLAZAS or Corporate … institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. Fahad Ishahi 2013 (196) DLT 734. 4. Satya Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. v. Satya Infra and Estate Pvt.

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited Vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. and ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property

Rules and Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying a judgment and decree for: (a) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their distributors, stockists, servants, agents, … filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying a judgment and decree for: … In Cadila Health Care Ltd., v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [(2001) 5 SCC 73], the issue was related to medicine being sold under a brand name

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 … at page 408 and Aktiebolaget Volvo vs. Volvo Steel Ltd. (1998 (18) PTC page 47 at 98, para 73). 2.19 That the impugned logo of the Defendant is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's logo. The Plaintiff has

Yonex Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Phillips International and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 13 and 40; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 27, 27(2), 28, 28(3), 30(1) and 31; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : LC2007(3)228; 2007(35)PTC345(Del)

in view of Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act. thereforee, in view of Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the plaintiff is not entitled to sue the defendant for infringement of trade mark.12. Learned Counsel for the … has to see the overall impression which the trademark gives'. The Division Bench, under paragraph 6 at page 733, also made a reference to Kerly in Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 12th Edition paragraph 17-08

Neon Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Themis Medicare Ltd. and Another

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property

Ltd. in 1956. This is no defence at all. It is immediately defeated by Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Act”): “28. Rights conferred by registration.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the registration … SC 142, para 13).Dr. Tulzapurkar relies on the “FLOWSTACKA” Trade Mark case (1968) 3 RPC 66 at p. 73): “The test which he applied was that suggested by Lord Parker in du Cros Ltd.s Application (1913) 30

The Indian Express Limited and Another Vs. Chandra Prakash Shivhare

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Act. He does not suggest that the provisions of the Press Act must override the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 but only suggests what is, apparently, a policy of peaceful co-existence, presumably meaning that while the Plaintiffsâ™ use … Petition on 30th March 2010 by giving him liberty to move after a final order was passed under Section 6 of the Press Act (Exhibit D-6, Compilation pp. 408-413, read with clarification dated 28th June 2010 Exhibit … in Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 73).The tests are well established: if the defendantâ™s use of a mark is

The Coca-cola Company and anr. Vs. K.M. Salim

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

are valid and subsisting as of date. By virtue thereof and by virtue of the provisions of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the plaintiff No.1 and its licensees have the exclusive right to use … alia in respect of the goods and services for which the aforesaid trade marks are registered. Additionally, under Section 31 of the Act, the original registration is a prima facie evidence as to its validity. Copies of … Section 29 of the Act. INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT41 Counsel has referred para 73 of the plaint and alleged that the defendant’s labels of the impugned

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba Vs. Tosiba Appliances Co.

Court : Trademark

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2005)(30)PTC188Reg

the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Rules framed thereunder read with the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rules framed thereunder on the following grounds:- (1) That the said trade mark TOSHIBA was wrongly registered … the entry of the mark was made without sufficient cause. (2) That the trade mark was registered under Section 9 of the Act by committing fraud and misrepresenting and suppressing the facts. (3) That the registration of … SER vide annexure dated 24.9.1961 which can be seen from page No. 73. I am citing some more consignments of the proprietor's merchandise sold &

Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr. vs Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

in the Plaintiffs9 trademark registration. In support of this argument, reliance was placed on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which grants exclusive rights to the registered proprietor of a mark, to contend that the Plaintiffs could not … to build their brand post-pandemic, specifically from 2022. Mr. Goswami also referred to the Plaintiffs912 (2001) 5 SCC 73 13 AIR 1965 SC 980 14 (1972) 1 SCC 618 15 (1969) 2 SCC 131 16 2025 SCC