Court : Chennai
Reported in : LC2007(3)402
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs' well established trade mark 'MOHAN JEWELLERY' and passing off their jewellery by using the word 'MOHAN' as part of trade mark and the trading style as and for the plaintiffs' jewellery and also for directing the defendants to surrender the entire stock of unused offending 'Ummidi Bangaru MOHAN JEWELLERS', Bill Books, Invoices and Labels together with the blocks and dyes, etc. for destruction and to render a true and correct accounts of income earned by the defendant by using the offending word 'MOHAN' as part of their trade mark and trading style.2. The plaintiffs allege that they are leading manufacturers of precious metals including gold jewellery. They have honestly conceived and adopted the trade mark and trading style 'MOHAN JEWELLERY' since 15.11.1961. The plaintiffs have become distinctive. They have spent considerable amounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. These two references under the then Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the BST Act) seek an answer and opinion of this Court on the following questions of law, which have been formulated by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. 2. In Sales Tax Reference No. 16 of 2003, on 12th September, 2003, the Tribunal has referred the questions set out herein below: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the amount of Rs.8,34,781/- as per hire purchase agreement dated 7.2.1996 hire financed in favour of Shri. Ajit Singh Bhimrao was liable to tax under Section 8 of the B.S.T. Act, 1959? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that an amount of Rs.3,27,601/- out of Rs.8,34,781/- which were option money, insurance charges for 3 years and hire premium recovered from Shri. Ajit Singh Bhimrao formed part of the Sale Pri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)3CALLT450(HC)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. This is an interlocutory application by the plaintiff in its passing off action. The prayers in this application are as follows:'a) Interim order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, assigns employees, servants, dealers, retailers and all persons acting on their behalf or under them from passing off their goods and/or service and/or business by marketing, selling, advertising, or otherwise dealing in goods/services under the trade mark/name 'CAPITAL ONE', or otherwise using the expression CAPITAL ONE, whether in isolation or in conjunction with any other word/expression, in respect of any goods or services or as corporate name or domain name or in any other manner whatsoever;b) Ad interim order in terms of prayer (a) above; c) Receiver;d) costs;e) Any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.'2. The plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench Sitting At Kolkatta) Common Order No.269/2013 V. Ravi, Technical Member: The applicant herein are seeking the removal from the register the seven trade marks namely Appln. No. 666089 in Class 18; Appln. No. 666076 in Class 05; Appln.No.666090 in Class 19; Appln.No. 666103 in Class 27; Appln. No. 666096 in Class 34; Appln.No.666081 in Class 10 and Appln.No. 66091 in Class 20 of the respondent. All the impugned marks have been filed on the same date by the respondent on a proposed to be used basis for a vast spectrum of goods available in the market falling in that particular class under the International Classification of goods which is something that is beyond the resource management of any company thus setting the stage for a wonderous legal brawl. (in Hindi called Mara Mari). It is the applicants case that this attempt by the respondents is contrary to the intention of the Act and against the laws laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. The impugned trade marks are not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 15-02-2007 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No.661 of 2006. That Notice of Motion was taken out by the Appellant in Suit No.437 of 2006. Suit No.437 of 2006 is filed by the present Appellant claiming a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing their trade-mark. The Plaintiff Raymond Limited is a company, which is the successor of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act in 1925. Which had conceived and adopted the use of the word Raymond in a stylised manner for for marketing its products. On 27nd June, 1983, the plaintiff obtained registration for the trade mark 'Raymond' under registration No.401766 registered in Class 25 in respect of textile piece goods including shirting, suiting and saris, dress materials, blankets, shawls, satin, bed and table covers, bed spreads, bed sheets, tissues, felts, curtains, flannel, handkerchiefs, linen, cloth linings, towe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : LC2008(2)332; (2008)3MLJ10
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In these appeals, as common question of law involved and preferred against common judgment, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Before deciding individual claim and counter claim, including the pleading as was set forth in different plaints, it is desirable to note certain undisputed facts, as shown hereunder:S.M. Palaniappa Chettiar, 1st plaintiff in C.S. No. 311/97 commenced business sometime in 1940's of publishing 'Konar Notes' for school students through M/s. Palaniappa Brothers, 2nd plaintiff in C.S. No. 311/97, a family partnership firm, respondent herein. The author of the book was one Vidwan Ayyan Perumal Konar, a Tamil scholar, assisted by a team of scholars. The notes seems to have popularly come to be knows as 'Konar Tamil Urai', i.e., Konar Tamil Notes. For the present, they are publishing 'Konar Tamil Urai' for students of classes XI and XII.M/s. Karthikeyan & Co., 1st defendant in C.S. No. 284/97 was established in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad) Honble Shri Z.S. Negi, Chairman: This is an appeal under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed against the order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks whereby the Interlocutory Petition dated 8.8.2005, filed by the respondent No.2 herein in rectification No. AMD-60931 to registered trade mark No. 535953B in class 3 was allowed and further evidence filed by the registered proprietor taken on record and liberty given to the appellant herein to file rebuttal within 30 days from the receipt of the impugned order dated 3.5.2006. 2. The appellant herein, claiming to be the subsequent proprietor of the trade mark AJANTA under Nos. 191915 as of 3.9.1959 in class 21 in respect of brushes included in class 21, 220724 as of 19.2.1964 in class 3 in respect of non-medicated toilet preparations, cosmetics, perfumes and 344242 as of 18.12.1978 in class 21 in respect of tooth brushes included in clas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1282; LC2008(3)57
V.M. Sahai and R.N. Misra, JJ.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant Sanjal Kumar alias Mallu against the order dated 10.9.2007 passed by Shri P.N. Tripathi, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda in Original Suit No. 215 of 2007, by which the ad-interim injunction application 6Ga2 moved by the plaintiff-respondent has been allowed and the appellant has been restrained from manufacturing and selling 'Deshi Gutkha' in the packing similarly to the packing of the plaintiff.2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ravi Kant, senior advocate, assisted by Shri Pankaj Shukla, for the respondents.3. It appears from the contents of the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent is dealing in Deshi Gutkha from 1999 in the name and style of 'Sahu Bharat Deshi Gutkha' in District Banda. The Gutkha is sold in the plastic packets. Originally the trade name of the industry of the plaintiff was M/s. Sahu Industries, later on it became 'Prayag Indust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. First mentioned application taken out by the defendant for dismissal of the above suit and/or revocation of leave granted under Clause (12) of Letters Patent in the suit, and also for vacating all interim orders. The second mentioned application has been taken out by the plaintiff for suitable interlocutory relief in the aforesaid suit, The suit filed by the plaintiff for passing off against the defendant in relation to the mark 'Oxyline' used for marketing and selling of a medicinal product viz. eye drop. The plaintiff obtained ad interim order of injunction on 28th April, 1999, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Oxyline'. This interim order has been continuing till the date of hearing of both the applications. Learned Counsel for the defendant Mr. Ajoy Gupta submits that the application taken out by his client need not be heard separately, but the points and contentions taken therein should he considered at the time of hearing of the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at Mumbai) Honble Shri Z.S. Negi, Vice-Chairman: This appeal under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is directed against the letter dated 26.4.2005 of the Registrar though Examiner of Trade Marks issued in pursuance of section 21(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which a copy of counter-statement was sent to the appellant inviting his attention to the requirements of the provisions of rule 53 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The appellant has filed, along with the appeal, two Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 64/2005 and 65/2005, respectively, for stay of further proceeding in relation to registration of application No. 740382 during the pendency of the appeal and for listing of the appeal for hearing at Delhi. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has also filed Miscellaneous Petition Nos.44/2006 and 104/2006, respectively, for taking certain additiona...
Tag this Judgment!