Advanced Search Results

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mr. G. Choudhary and anr ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 3, 3(3), 30 and 74(2); MRTP Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Reported in : 136(2007)DLT605; 2006(91)DRJ159; 2006(33)PTC425(Del)

China' a research supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).9. The following provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 are germane to the present dispute --29 (1) Infringement of registered trade marks- A registered trade mark is … certification trade marks.-- (1) An application by the registered proprietor of certification trade mark under Sub-section (2) of Section 74 to alter the deposited regulation shall be made in Form TM-42 and where the Registrar decides to permit

Span Diagnostic Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design and anr ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 83; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 25(1), 25(2), 25(3), 25(4), 27, 28, 29(2), 29(3), 37, 41, 42, 47, 51, 54, 57, 59 to 63, 66, 69(3), 74, 78, 84(1) to 84(5), 85, 86, 88, 88(3), 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 116, 116(1), 116(2), 117, 117A, 117A(2), 117G and 158; Patents Amendment Act, 2002 - Sections 1(2), 18 and 47; Patents Amendment Act, 2005 - Sections 1(1), 1(2), 23, 60 and 61; Patents Amendment Act, 1999

Reported in : LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)

116. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Appellate Board established under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 shall be the Appellate Board for the purposes of this Act and the said Appellate Board shall exercise … (ii) (a), and clause (b), of Section 37, Sections 41, 42, 47, 59 to 63 (both inclusive and Section 74 shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,

Micolube India Limited Vs. Rakesh Kumar Trading as Saurabh Industries ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

of the Patents Act, 1970 Section 2 (h) defines Patent Office means the patent office referred to in section 74 of the Patents Act, 1970 Section 3 (1) defines The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks … out the misrepresentation. The said passing off remedy has been expressly preserved under Section 27 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.56. The legislative intent behind preservation of the passing off remedy is that though the Trade Mark Act provides

Tata Projects Limited, Rep. by Its Company Secretary and Another Vs. K ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

behalf of 'LandT' by placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Whirlpool Corporation -vs- Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998(8) SCC 1) and the case of Popcorn Entertainment and Another -vs- City Industrial Development Corporation and … of India Ltd., vs. State of Bihar and ors (AIR 1999 SC 74); in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others - vs- State … petitions at this stage. 'KPCL' more particularly has made detailed reference to the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 ('KTPP Act' for short) and has contended that no cause has arisen for filing the instant petition. The … evaluate all the bids as per the procedure contemplated in Annexure-8 of Section A2 and clause 23.4 of Section A2 to arrive at L-1 and

Dabur India Limited Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 28 and 29(8); Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act - Sections 36A

Reported in : AIR2005Delhi102; 114(2004)DLT373; 2004(77)DRJ415; 2004(29)PTC401(Del)

violation of the Intellectual Property Rights of the plaintiff.(c) In any event Section 29(8)(a) & (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) does not permit the infringement of a registered trade mark such as … He has further relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Cadila case reported as 2001 (5) SCC 74 @ para 17 and 87 to contend that the burden of proof is higher in trade mark cases

Cadbury India Limited and ors. Vs. Neeraj Food Products

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 17, 18, 18(1), 18(4), 31, 27, 27(2), 28, 29 and 29(5); Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 17; Copyright Act, 1957; Trademarks Act, 1940 - Sections 10; Civil Procedure Coce - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Indian Penal Code

Reported in : 142(2007)DLT724; LC2007(2)269; 2007(35)PTC95(Del)

Penal Code Disclaimer does not affect those rights in any way.73. By virtue of Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a person has been conferred a statutory right of protection of its registered trademark. At the same time

Vinod Hinigorani Vs. The Securities and Exchange Board of India and An ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

603; H.B. Gandhi v. M/s Gopinath and Sons, [1992] Suppl. 2 SCC 312; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors., AIR (1999) SC 22; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., … of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR (1999) SC 74; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, [1999] 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National … demand dated 11.7.2014 and 16.7.2014 under Rule III and Part I of second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 r/w. Section 28-A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India, 1992, whereby the petitioner was directed

Exide Technologies Vs. Exide Industries Ltd. and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

the ground that the latter, Exide India had not disclosed all the relevant facts before the Registrar of Trade Marks and consequently, the registration was duplicitously obtained. According to the defendants, Exide India failed to disclose that the … in India to use the word EXIDE and register it as its trademark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 8. Exide India/the first plaintiff alleges that in 1991, Chloride Group plc sold all its shares in … It is therefore evident- from the provisions of Section 111(1) (now replaced by Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999) that in no circumstance where the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of registration of the plaintiff s … SCC 727; Usha International (India) v. Omicron Electronics GMBH, 114 (2004) DLT 740; Baker Hughes Ltd. v. Hiroo Khushlani, 2004 (29) PTC 153 (SC). 22.

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; … 3 SCR 289 : (1972) 1 SCC 618; Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2001] 2 SCR 743 : AIR 2001 SC 1952; Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. (1990) Supp. 1 SCC 727 :

Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Crossword Agro Industries and Anot ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Land Acquisition

the Learned Registrar would allow one further extension under his wide discretionary powers under Section 127 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 On April 7, 2004 the appellants attorneys intimated the Learned Registrar that it would be relying on the … and others (vi) AIR 1994 Rajasthan 110 – Gopal versus Hira Chand and others (vii) AIR 1999 Allahabad 74 – Narain Das versus IInd Addl. Dist. Judge Morabdabad and another (viii) 2005 (0) GLHEL 215835 – Videocon