Advanced Search Results

Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. Vs.mr. Kunwer Sachdev & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

owner, proprietor and user of the Su-Kam Marks in respect of goods covered under Class 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and such admissions supersede any and all issues, including those disputed by the defendants. He pointed out the … declaration, permanent injunction, damages and incidental relief(s). CS(COMM) 1155/2018 Page 1 of 77 2. During the pendency of the suit, a Liquidator had been appointed … person is estopped from raising a question of title. The provisions of the Evidence Act are clear like Section 116, whereby in a certain situation a person may be estopped from pleading a title in himself. xxxx

B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre Vs. Shree Rajmoti Industries

Court : Trademark

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (2007)(34)PTC288Reg

Opponents submitted a reply under their letter dated 28th September, 2006 stating that under Section 21(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits that a notice of opposition can be filed within three months from the date of advertisement or … Opponents in this connection relied upon the case of Pavunny Ouseph v.Registrar of Trade Marks AIR 1952 Travancore 77 in support of his arguments and contention.5. Mr. Bansal stated that Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of Trade

M/S Rajni Industries Vs. Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 10, 24 and 107 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2, 15, 16, 17, 27(2), 29, 31, 32, 43, 46, 54(2), 56, 77, 78, 79, 120 and 120(1 and 2); Specific Relief Act, 1960 - Sections 41(A and B); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34 and 420

Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)6; 92(2001)DLT556; 2001(3)RAJ263

August, 1999 against the plaintiffs for committing offences under Section 77, 78 and 89 of Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with Section 420/34 of IPC Along with an application under Section 93 Cr.P.C. for issuance of … this Court praying that the Registration No. 313337 of the defendants either be expunged from the Register of Trade Marks or the defendants be directed to enter an express condition on the Register of Trade Marks that all

K. Ramapandi Trading as Vasanthi and Co. and Tamil Nadu Oil Industries ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property

1 of Original Side Rules r/w. Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. and Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying of a judgment and decree: (a) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, by itself, its servants, … Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules r/w. Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. and Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying of a judgment and decree: (a) granting a … mark or a word mark. 14. In Pionotist case [1906 (23) RPC 774] it has been held as follows: You must take the two words.

People Interactive (India) Private Limited Vs. Vivek Pahwa and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

a secondary meaning. 29. Dr. Tulzapurkar is also correct in submitting that Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ( TMA 1999 ) entirely cover the situation. 30. Limits on effect of registered trade mark. (1) . … mark is nothing but the domain name. 25. In paragraphs 76 and 77 of Raymond Ltd, (Paragraph numbers are from the Manupatra report)Menon J said: … to take unfair advantage nor is it detrimental to the distinctive character of the plaintiff s registered Mark. Section 29(4) requires criteria all three sub-clauses to be satisfied unlike Section 29(8) referred to by Mr. Khandekar. Although

Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. Vs. the Controller General of Patents ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : MRTP

The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of section 92 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in the interest of justice the review powers as per Civil Procedure Code are applicable to this Appellate … to review his own order under section 127 ( c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and section 77(f) of the Patents Act, 1970. There is no provision either under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder

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; … v. Knoll International Ltd., 1962 RPC 265; Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV Case C-342/97 [2000] F.S.R. 77, ECJ; James Crossley Eno v. William George Dunn, H.L. (E) 1890, June 19. Vol. XV, App. Cas. page

Turning Point Institute Private Limited vs.m/s Turning Point

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

(OS) No.2368/2015 Page 52 of 63 88. The defendants have also placed reliance on Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 33 of the Act provides: “33. Effect of acquiescence.- (1) Where the proprietor of an earlier trade mark … by achieving high percentage in board/school exams and cracking medical and engineering entrances with a success percentage of 77%, but also towards building their future. I.A. No.16232/2015 in CS (OS) No.2368/2015 Page 5 of 63 8. The

M/S Turning Point vs.turning Point Institute Private Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

(OS) No.2368/2015 Page 52 of 63 88. The defendants have also placed reliance on Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 33 of the Act provides: “33. Effect of acquiescence.- (1) Where the proprietor of an earlier trade mark … by achieving high percentage in board/school exams and cracking medical and engineering entrances with a success percentage of 77%, but also towards building their future. I.A. No.16232/2015 in CS (OS) No.2368/2015 Page 5 of 63 8. The

Banana Brand Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavan Antani, Director, Bananabandy N ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Service Tax

a case for injunction for infringement and passing off qua against the respondents. Accordingly, the applications stand allowed. Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29 Entitlement to Relief Alleging that respondents have been infringing upon registered mark of applicant, apart from committing