Advanced Search Results

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the interpretation of Section 98 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TM Act, 1999), which is a provision similar to the repealed Section 112 of the Trade and Merchandise

g.d Foods Mfg (India) Pvt Ltd. Vs.zihawa Foods Pvt Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

plaintiff’s claim that it is an assignee is not maintainable, as in view of Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, an assignee does not become the owner of a trademark unless it is registered in his name and … business within jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on Haryana Milk Foods Ltd. vs. Chambel Dairy Products 98(2002) DLT359 There is no dispute to the legal proposition that the question of jurisdiction has to be decided

Pacific Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT West Bengal

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (2001)123STC305Tribunal

to buy the entire production of the said company on principal to principal basis after getting its brand names/trade marks affixed by the applicant-company on the goods. Neither in Section 39 of 1994 Act, nor in Rules 98 … (in short, "1995 Rules") by insertion of a new clause, i.e., Clause (v) with effect from September 1, 1999 will be enforceable in respect of newly set up small-scale industrial units who started enjoying the tax holiday

M/S Bisleri International Pvt., Ltd., Vs. Dr.Dadi Balsara and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

to be struck off the records as it is: a) not a statement under section 98(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); b) against the basic provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; c)

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 … paras 16-73 at page 408 and Aktiebolaget Volvo vs. Volvo Steel Ltd. (1998 (18) PTC page 47 at 98, para 73). 2.19 That the impugned logo of the Defendant is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's logo. The

Walter Bushnel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mankind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

Matched in: Judge K.N. Basha, Chairman &Amp; the Honourable Mr. V. Ravi, Technical Member (Trade Marks)

M/S Az Tech (India) & Anr. Vs.m/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

has represented before the Trade Marks Registry in India. This is in violation of Section 24 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and suppression of the Agreement dated 22.03.2009 from the Registry. b. Similar deception has been played upon the

Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal Karta of R.M. Dhariwal (Huf) and ors. Vs. ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCivil

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 34; Limitation Act - Sections 21; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 10 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 14, Rule 5

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR481; 2005(3)BomCR104; 2005(2)MhLj611; 2005(31)PTC401(Bom)

be granted. 12. Both, Mr. Chagla and Mr. Tulzapurkar has also placed reliance upon Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which inter alia reads as under :'34. Saving for vested rights.- Nothing in this Act shall entitle the

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 … the proceedings as he was not a necessary party. The counsel submitted that as per the provisions of section 98 of the Act, the Registrar shall appear if so directed by the Appellate Board. 23. The counsel further

Philip Morris Products S.a and anr Vs. Sameer and ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

cheap but inferior in terms of the quality of the paper & the tobacco.33. Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows:“29. Infringement of registered trademarks.(1) A registered trade mark is infringed … the plaintiffs has relied upon the case of Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v. Casa Helvetia, Inc. , 982 F.2d 633 where the US Federal Court held that "an unauthorized importation may well turn an otherwise "genuine"