Advanced Search Results

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 … quoted by Vimadalal, J. in the case of Hindustan Embroidery Mills v. K. Ravindra and Co. (1967 Vol. LXXVI Bom. L.R. 146)from the book by Kerly on Trademarks. Vimadalal J. referred to a passage from the book

Avtar NaraIn Behal Vs. Subhash Chander Behal

Court : Delhi

Subject : FamilyCivil

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 299; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 4; Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Sections 4, 5(2), 10, 10(1) and 15; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 38; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 10; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 39 and 39(1); Trade Marks Act, 1940 - Sections 76; Government of India Act, 1915; Guardians and Wards Act - Sections 25, 47 and 48; Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 140; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 54; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10-E, 10-F, 397, 398 and 483; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(2), 4, 4(1), 35A, 47, 91, 92, 95, 96, 100A, 104, 104(1), 104(2), 115 and 622 - Order 39, Rule 1 - Order 43, Rule 1; Constitution of Ind

Reported in : 154(2008)DLT140

Court was maintainable against the judgment of a single Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. Holding that such an appeal was maintainable, the Supreme Court observed: (AIR p. 360 para.7)Section 76, Trade … abolish the third appeal.6. Section 100A was substituted by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) which came into force with effect from 1.7.2002. It reads as follows:100A. No further appeal

Rahul Uttam Suryavanshi Vs. Sunil Manikchand Kasliwal

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property

to use 'MOR CHHAP' trade mark exclusively is contrary to sections 15, 17, 28 and 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which is not permissible. It is submitted that the plaintiff had admittedly not applied for registration of the … that the impugned order thereby allowing the plaintiff to use 'MOR CHHAP' trade mark exclusively is contrary to sections 15, 17, 28 and 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which is not permissible. It is submitted … vs. Reckitt and Colman of India Limited and another, AIR 1991 Bombay 76 and in particular paragraphs 9 to 12, 17, 21, 23 and 25.

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 … have an element of similarity which will cause deception (National Chemicals vs. Reckitt and Colman (AIR 1991 Bom. 76 at 81). 2.9 That side-by-side comparison is required to be avoided because the question is whether the person

Creative Tours and Travels (India) Private Limited Vs. Intellectual Pr ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

tours and travel arrangements, manpower consultancy and recruitment. 4. Respondent No.1 is a statutory authority constituted under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Respondent No.2 is the Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai. The Registrar has registered a trade … sought by Respondent No.1. Against this order, an Appeal was preferred before the High Court of Calcutta under Section 76 of the then Trade Marks Act 1940, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of that Court on

Jagdish Gopal Kamath and Others Vs. Lime and Chilli Hospitality Servic ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

expression; and that the Plaintiffs cannot enforce their rights in view of Sections 18 and 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. There is, the Defendant says, no question of any relief being granted to the Plaintiff. 5. Specifically, the … with the Plaintiffs use of the expression; and that the Plaintiffs cannot enforce their rights in view of Sections 18 and 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. There is, the Defendant says, no question of any … Syndicate Pvt Ltd v Lokranjan Breweries Pvt Ltd., 2014 (5) Bom CR 767) The principle plainly has universal application: it was reiterated even in the

Anjani Kumar Goenka and anr. Vs. Goenka Institute of Education and Res ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 35(1) and 35(3); U.K. Trade Marks Act, 1938 - Sections 8; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4

Reported in : AIR2008Delhi1992; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)547

as bona fide use being common surname of the defendant proprietor/partners/directors and, therefore, under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the defendant is entitled to use the same as a bona fide user. Section 35 of the Act … Kerly's book is based on In re: an application by Beck, Kollar and Co. (England) Limited 64 R.P.C. 76. It is clear however from that case, as we shall presently show, that before the applicant can seek

Shakti Electricals (P) Ltd., Vs. New Shakti Radios and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

to proceed for registration. The Honble High Court of Delhi has, in pursuance of section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, transferred the said appeal, being C.M. (M) No. 133 of 2003 on its file, to the Intellectual Property

Three-n-products Pvt. Ltd., 3030, Street No. 4, Ranjit Nagar, New Delh ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 29, 33, 105 and 106; Copy Right Act, 1957 - Sections 55; Trade Marks Act, 1940 - Sections 9 and 76

Reported in : 95(2002)DLT271

mark Durex to registration. Appellant preferred an appeal before the Calcutta High Court under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. T he said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 9th March 1959. The appellant filed … the plaintiff has given year wise sales and the the amount spent on advertisement right from 1984-85 to 1999-2000 which shows that the sales as well as the expenditure on advertisement has been steadily increasing year to

M/S. Times Publishing House Ltd and Another Vs. M/S. the Financial Tim ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

is that, in view of the said judgment, TPHL cannot rely upon Ss 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act,1999 to seek cancellation and that would leave only the grounds of bona fide intention to use and/or non-use … seek cancellation and that would leave only the grounds of bona fide intention to use and/or non-use under section 46 of the Trade Marks Act. Since the written submissions were exchanged after the orders were reserved, the … genuine use. 2) Bimal Govindji vs Pannaalal v. Chandulal [1997 (Arb) L.R. 76]: In this case too, the Court held that the use should be