Advanced Search Results

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 … 1979, by "Creative Enterprises" and by "Creative Travel and Tours" from 1992. 8. The Petitioner, therefore, on 22nd April 2004 applied for registration of a … preliminary provisions, including definitions. The Appellate Board, which has passed the impugned order, is a Board established under Section 83. Prior thereto, we must see the definition of the term "mark", which is to be found in

Three-n-products Private Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limit ...

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; ;Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 8, 28 and 30; ;Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 24(4), 28, 29(2) and 159

Reported in : 2006(4)CHN733,2007(34)PTC515(Cal)

and Trade Names (14th Edn.) in paragraph 17-021 and 17-031. Under Section 29(2)(a)(b) and Section 24(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the scope has been widened regarding infringement, which include mark of similar goods. In the old Act this … advertisement. In the year 2002-03 the petitioner spent a sum of Rs. 1.5 crores a sum of Rupees 80,55,845.90p till September, 2003 on account of advertisement. Therefore, according to the petitioner it is established prima facie that

M/S K.E.Burgmann a/S Vs. H.N.Shah and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Trade Marks

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 134 (1), 15 to 20(2); Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Section 8

Zaveri (supra), it was held that in a suit falling under clause 3(c) of Section 134 (1) of Trade Marks Act, 1999, the territorial jurisdiction of the Court has to be decided with reference to general provisions of the Code … The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 7. A careful analysis of Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would show that the following conditions are required to be fulfilled before

Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd. Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. a ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2(1), 3(2), 4, 5, 47, 57, 98, 98(2), 125 and 157; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 112; Right to Information Act (RTI) 2005; Trade Marks Rules, 2002 - Rules 4 and 8(2); Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : LC2010(1)205

S. Muralidhar, J.1. An interesting question involving the interpretation of Section 98 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TM Act, 1999), which is a provision similar to the repealed Section 112 of the Trade and Merchandise … BIPL) on 10th September 2008 itself. The petitioner's lawyers applied to the Trade Marks Registry at Mumbai on 8th December 2008 under the Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI Act) to ascertain the name of the party

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 … Trade Marks issued an Examination Report that no mark conflicting to the plaintiff's mark was reflected. (v) On 8 August 2011, the trade mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and thereafter the trade mark was

Paras Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and 2 ors.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 29, 29(4), 29(6), 29(7) and 29(8); Copyright Act; Trade Marks Act, 1994 - Sections 10(6) and 11(2); Consumer Credit Act, 1974; Consumer Credit Regulation, 1974; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 43, Rule 1; Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules, 1961

Reported in : AIR2008Guj94; (2008)3GLR1963; LC2008(2)395; 2008(38)PTC658(Guj)

manner, which amounts to an infringement of copyright, especially when the appellant is the registered proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He has further submitted that the respondents have used the mark without any license or permission from the … was believed by the defendant to offer the customer a better deal. 8. The plaintiff was therefore unlikely to win the action and this was … have used the mark without any license or permission from the appellant, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, the respondents are liable for infringement. In view of the provisions contained in Section

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

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Trade Marks

Acts : Trade Marks Act 1999 - Order 14 Rule 8 - Section 124; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Order 4 Rule 1 - Sections 105, 106

with the petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act 1999:- 1.(a) The applicant has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent company from in any manner

M/S the Himalaya Drug Company Vs. M/S Gufic Limited

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

infringing the registered trade mark SALLAKI against the HIMALAYA PURE HERBS-SHALLAKI. 8. Pursuant to section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the matter has been transferred from the High Court of Bombay to this Board and the same has

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 … surname or a personal name. (See P. Narayanan's Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off (6th edition), para 8. 20).20. There is no dispute that surname cannot become distinctive without the evidence of distinctiveness. No protection or