Advanced Search Results

Samsung Electronics Company Limited and Another Vs. Kapil Wadhwa and O ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

the relevant provisions of Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 are also reproduced below:- UK TRADE MARK ACT, 1994 Section 9- Rights conferred by registered trade mark - (1) The proprietor of a registered trade mark has exclusive rights … plaintiffs to India amounts to infringement of the trade mark within the meaning of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. In this context, Mr. Anand has read and relied on Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

i.T.C. Limited Vs. G.T.C. Industries Ltd. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 159 and 159(3); Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 9 and 9(1); Trade Mark Rules

Reported in : 2008(2)BomCR132; (2008)110BOMLR259; 2008(2)MhLj922; LC2008(1)194

appellants filed the present appeal. 11. The learned Senior Counsel Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar submitted that the provisions of Trade Marks Act-1999 (T.M.Act-1999) are applicable and therefore, the appeal be decided accordingly, though the application was made under the 1958 … proceedings consequent thereon and to any registration granted in pursuance thereof.14. Another submission is about new and old Section 9 of the respective T.M. Acts. 15. Section 9 of the 1958 Act is reproduced as under:9. Requisites for

Suresh Dhanuka Vs. Sunita Mohapatra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Arbitration and Conciliation

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 134 and 135; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 42, 41; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 27

Reported in : 2012(1)SCC578; 2012(1)LW372; 2012(1)KLT45SN; 2012(1)SCJ675; 2012(1)ALT49; AIR2012SCW369; 2012(1)KCCR17(SC)(SN)

being CS No.26 of 2007, before the District Judge at Khurda, under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The learned District Judge, by an ex-parte order dated 29th August, 2007, restrained the Appellant and the company … Suresh Dhanuka, filed an application before the learned District Judge, Khurda, being ARB (P) No.576 of 2007, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act. 4. The facts leading

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 … as certified by their Chartered Accountant, from 1999-2006 has crossed Rs.345 crores. 9. Once the Petitioner claims to have carried on such vast business, then, … 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

Goenka Institute of Education and Research Vs. Anjani Kumar Goenka and ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trademark Act, 1999 - Sections 9, 9(1), 12, 13, 27(2), 28, 28(1), 28(3), 30(1), 30(2), 31, 33, 35 and 57; Trade Merchandise Marks Act, 1957 - Sections 2(1), 9, 13 and 34; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 41, Rule 27

Reported in : 2009(40)PTC393(Del)

issue of publici juris. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on the provision of Section 9 of the repealed Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1957 and more particularly Sub-section 1(d) and Sub-section 2 and … of this judgment by exercising powers similar to those vested in a Registrar under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.Prior use paras 6(i) & (ii), Infringement & Passing off Paras 6(v), Surname and Distinctiveness para 6(iii)14. The respondents

p.k. Sen vs.exxon Mobile Corporation and Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

and name in India. By virtue thereof and by virtue of the provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, this Hon‘ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.‖ From paragraph 26 of … of the Act being an inclusive one.‖ The learned single Judge answered the first two questions in favour 9. of the respondents and with regard to the third, he came to the conclusion that the word ―person‖,

Marico Limited Vs. Agro Tech Foods Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : CivilIntellectual Property Rights

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 151 - Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 4; ;Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Section 12A; ;Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2(l), 9, 9(1), 27(2), 28, 28(1), 30, 30(2), 31, 34, 35, 124, 124(2), 124(4) and 124(5); ;Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; ;Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 - Rules 26A and 62A; ;Trade Marks Act, 1938 - Section 4

Reported in : LC2010(2)14

the word 'LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY' is justified.3.2 In this regard, reference is made to Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Trade Mark Act') which, according to the defendant, permits use of the words or … withdrawn upon an examination report issued by the Trade Mark Registrar after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, wherein are contained grounds for refusal of registration of the mark sought by

Lowenbrau Ag and anr. Vs. JagpIn Breweries Ltd. and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 9, 9(1), 27(2), 28, 30(1), 30(2), 31, 31(2), 32, 34, 35, 124, 124(1) to 124(4), 124(5) and 159(5); Trade Mark and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958

Reported in : 2009BusLR360(Del); 157(2009)DLT791; LC2009(1)356

orders/directions on 28th January, 2009. Intellectual Property Rights - Trade marks - Infringement - Section 124 of the Trade marks Act, 1999 - Stay of proceedings where the validity of registration of the trade mark is questioned - Plaintiffs filed … not be held to be invalid on the ground that it was not a registrable trade mark under Section 9 except upon evidence of distinctiveness and that such evidence was not submitted to the Registrar before registration, if

Hawkins Cookers Limited Vs. Murugan Enterprises

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 9(1), 29, 29(2), 29(3), 30, 30(1), 30(2) and 134; Trade Marks Act, 1994 - Sections 11(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908

Reported in : LC2008(1)128; 2008(36)PTC290(Del)

user is not prohibited by any law much less by the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 or the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ('the said Act' for short). The object is only to inform the public that MAYUR gaskets can be … attention of this Court to para 32 of the plaint whereby jurisdiction is claimed of this Court under Section 134 of the said Act since the plaintiff carries on business at Delhi. It is further claimed that … also drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of the said Act which reads as under:9. Absolute grounds for refusal

World Wide Brands Inc. Vs. Smt. Dayavanti Jhamnadas Hinduja,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks and Merchandise Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11 and 18(1); Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 11(1); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Reported in : LC2009(2)310

as the opposition as to the registration of the trade mark is contrary to Section 11(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which came into force when the applications for registration were taken up for consideration is concerned, after analysing … Registration of the Trade Mark 'Camel Collection' in favour of the respondents would be contrary to the Sections 9, 11(a) and 11(e) and 18(1) of the Trade Marks and Merchandise Act, 1958.3. The respondents filed their counter