Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: finance act 1970 section 27 amendment of act 18 of 1958 Court: trademark Page 1 of about 8 results (0.050 seconds)

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba Vs. Tosiba Appliances Co.

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2005)(30)PTC188Reg

..... for further analyses of the marks as far deception and confusion is concerned. accordingly, the applicant for rectification has invoked the provisions of sub-section (2)(a) of section 9 of the act on the ground of deception and confusion. the deception or confusion can only be proved on evidence of user which has already been rejected ..... indian customers. the consumers in india very well know the trade mark toshiba and the said mark has become a household word and the provisions of section 47 of the act are totally inapplicable as the extensive nexus by way of agreement, joint venture etc. with india shows the registered proprietors' intention to use the trade ..... remains on the register of trade marks and the entry of the mark was made without sufficient cause. (2) that the trade mark was registered under section 9 of the act by committing fraud and misrepresenting and suppressing the facts. (3) that the registration of the mark was obtained without bona fide intention in relation to goods. .....

Om Textile Factory Vs. Pepsico Inc

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC225Reg

..... trade mark, the use of the impugned mark undoubtedly is likely to cause confusion and deception during the course of trade and hence prohibited for registration under section 11 of the act and the issue is decided accordingly. similarly it is difficult to digest the honesty and bona fide of the applicant with regard to the circumstances leading to his ..... india . she stated that the word 'pepsi' is one of the world's best known brands and qualifies as a well-known trade under section 11(2) to section 11(10) under the new trade marks act, 1999. she stated that the applicant has failed to disclose as to how and why he has adopted the impugned mark.ms. sundaram referred ..... (1) shall also go against the applicant and is ordered accordingly. also the discretion of this tribunal shall go against the applicant under section 18(4) of the act keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the type of evidence of use which has been filed in these proceedings and .....

Stadmed Private Limited Vs. Abbott Laboratories

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC229Reg

..... the rival marks and the rival goods are same and similar and, therefore, the registration of the impugned mark is mandatory prohibited for registration under section 11 read with section 12 of the act. he stated that the opponents are the registered proprietors of the word 'hytrin' in various countries of the world. he invited my attention to ..... registered trade mark of the opponents, is likely to cause confusion or deception during the course of trade and hence prohibited for registration under section 11 read with section 12 of the act.5. that the very adoption of the impugned mark by the applicants is with a view to trade upon and benefit from the goodwill ..... conclusion and the issue is decided accordingly. since there was no evidence of use on the date of application, the applicants cannot claim any benefit of section 12 of the act.12. keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly since the rival goods are medicinal preparations, the discretion of .....

Cadila Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd.

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2002)(25)PTC776Reg

..... or similar trade mark on record. in view of the fact that the opponents trade mark has got a statutory protection under section 28 of the act, i sustain the objection under section 18(1) of the act.17. all the objections taken by the opponents goes in their favour hence i see no reason as to why i should ..... publicity of the aforesaid goods bearing trade mark neopeptine. the ld.counsel for the applicants argued that applicants mark neoplatin is a coined word hence distinctive. section 9(5) of the act provides that in determining whether the trade mark is distinctive or capable of distinguishing the goods the tribunal might have regard to the extent to which ..... have failed to adopted to distinguish the goods from similar goods of the opponents. i therefore, sustain the objection under section 9 of the act.9. now i take up opponents objection under section 11(a) of the act. to sustain the objection the initial onus is upon the opponents to prove that the mark has acquired reputation by use .....

Rudi Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Kewal Krishan Kumar

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2002)(25)PTC555Reg

..... from each other. shri singh further submitted that the applicants are the real and genuine proprietor of the mark applied for within the ambit of section 18(1) of the act. finally, shri singh prayed that the impugned application be allowed to proceed registration and the notice of opposition be dismissed and the costs of these ..... similar to the registered trade mark of the opponents. therefore, its registration in the name of the applicants would be contrary to the provisions of section 12(1) of the act. shri miglani further submitted that the opponent has got injunction against the word shakti alongwith the device of trishool against some parties by the additional ..... the goods for which the applicants are seeking registration are the same and are of the same description, therefore, the mark applied for is hit under section 12(1) of the act. (10) the opponent submitted that inevitable confusion is likely to result from the use of the impugned mark during the course of trade. the consumer .....

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba Vs. Tosiba Appliances Company

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2002)(24)PTC654Reg

..... shri sahani, therefore, stressed that under these circumstances the registration of the mark applied for is not at all prohibited by operation of section 12(1) of the act or section 11(a) of the act. shri sahani further contended that the applicants had honestly adopted that mark applied for, namely, tosiba and having adopted honestly the applicants ..... of the case. the issues which fall for determination by this tribunal are under section 11(a), section 12(1), section 12(3) and section 18(1) of the act.10. firstly, i take up the issue under section 12(1) of the act. this sub-section prohibits registration of a trade mark which is either identical or deceptively similar to an ..... such advertisement, if it is to be regarded as "trade mark". i would add that to hold otherwise, would seem to nullify the effect of certain sections of the act. for instance a proprietor of a registered trade mark might, without having any goods to offer, advertise his mark at periodic intervals, and thereby prevent .....

Zaruj Enterprises Vs. Ici India Ltd.

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2003)(26)PTC583Reg

..... counsel, but the opponents' did'nt give any answer thereto.13. lastly, i hold the applicants as the 'proprietors 'of the marks as applied for, under section 18(1) of the act, as they have filed sufficient evidence in proof of hones and bona fide adoption thereof and also filed the annexure a-20 comprising of the copy of registry ..... application-1922-39 rpc 372 at 37. he also relied upon the following passage from air 1996 sc 2275': as such, the objection raised under section 11(a) and 11(e) of the act are, however, rejected. "therefore if a trader or manufacturer actually trades in or manufacture only one or some of the articles coming under broad classification ..... gave a notice of their intention to oppose the registration of the trade mark advertised, as aforesaid, on the grounds of its violative under sections 9, 11(a), 11(e) and 18(f) of the act.3. the applicants filed their counter-statement on 14.02.2002 generally denying all the trial allegations as contained in the notice of opposition .....

Poonam Electricals Vs. Ranjit Electronics

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2003)(26)PTC284Reg

..... granted injunction against the applicant from using the trade mark duke in respect of electrical accessories and the opponent has also filed one complaint under section 81 of the act against the applicant for misrepresenting the trade mark as registered without having any registration in favour of the applicant. apart from all these, the ..... of trade mark duke within the provision of section 18(1) of the act, hence prayed that the application of the applicant be dismissed accordingly.15. sh. g.d. chugh, ld. counsel for the opponent relied upon ..... is not distinctive and not even capable of being distinguishing with the goods of the applicant therefore, deserved to be dismissed, within the provision of section 9 of the act.14. sh. g.d. chugh, the learned counsel submitted that for the reasons, facts and circumstances highlighted earlier, the applicant is not the proprietor .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Court : Trademark

..... substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.13. in view of the above findings and all the circumstances of the case, i hereby refuse to proceed ..... and its use" and the same was allotted the application no. 1602/mas/1998.2. a representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. lakshmi kumaran & sridharan, new delhi on behalf of m/s.ranbaxy laboratories ltd., india on ..... the submissions made under the ground of anticipation and further said that the application claims only a polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate. as per section 3(d) of the patents act, any salt, polymorph or derivative of known substance is not patentable unless such salt, polymorph or other substance shows enhanced efficay of the substance .....

Anthony Kavalakattu Trading as Vs. E.M.i. Records Limited

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2002)(24)PTC738Reg

..... opponents' mark and thereby pass off their goods as for opponents' goods. therefore, the applicants cannot claim to be the proprietors within the meaning of section 18(1) of the act. he accordingly prayed that the registrar should exercise his discretion adversely to the applicants and the impugned application may be refused registration with costs to the ..... resemblance between the marks and the nature of goods covered by them are important factors in considering the question of probability of deception and confusion under section 11(a) of the act, on the question of similarity of rival marks, it is doubtless that the label filed for registration under application no. 483274 is similar to the ..... opponents being such a nature their purchasers are greatly selective and cautious. as was observed by hon'ble vima dalai, j. in misc. petition no. 58 of 1970 bombay high court, "they would be persons, who would know what they have come to buy or, at any rate, would be accompanied by persons who are .....