Trade Mark - Judgment Search Results

Registrar of Trade Marks Thr Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks vs.sonik ...

Court: Delhi

in certain proceedings.-(1) In every proceeding under chapter VII or under section 91, every registered user of a trade mark using by way of permitted use, who is not himself an applicant in respect of any proceeding under … 8 for, inspite of a direction to file an Action Taken Report qua the matter of allowing the trade mark to proceed for registration without opposition filed thereto being disposed of, having not been filed.18. The counsel for

Registrar of Trade Marks vs.kapoor Saws Manufacturing Co & Ors

Court: Delhi

in certain proceedings.-(1) In every proceeding under chapter VII or under section 91, every registered user of a trade mark using by way of permitted use, who is not himself an applicant in respect of any proceeding under … 8 for, inspite of a direction to file an Action Taken Report qua the matter of allowing the trade mark to proceed for registration without opposition filed thereto being disposed of, having not been filed.18. The counsel for

Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management Gmbh & Co. Kg vs.ms. Sheeta Sabharwal ...

Court: Delhi

$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 1236/2018& I.A. 15717/2018 HUGO BOSS TRADE MARK MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO. KG ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Karan Bajaj, Advocate with Ms. Shreya Sethi, Ms. Kangan … to the Plaintiff’s earlier well-known trade marks BOSS, BOSS HUGO BOSS and other BOSS formative marks as a trade mark or a trade name or in any manner whatsoever, either as a trade mark or part of a

Registrar of Trade Marks Vs. Hamdard National Foundation (India)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1980Delhi180; 17(1980)DLT521; 1980RLR514

the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks and allowed the application of the respondent to have their trade mark consisting of the word(SAFIi) registered in Glass 5 in Schedule Iv in respect of medicinal preparation under the … Marks Rule 1959 have beenframed under the Act. Rule 22 provides that for the purpose of registrationof .the trade mark goods shall be classified in Fourth Schedule. The FourthSchedule in dassification of goods item 5 amongst others. mentions

Patent and Trade Mark Agencies Employees Union Vs. William Frederic De ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1964Cal80

by two persons W. F. Depending and B. A. E. Depenning who practise the profession of Patent and Trade Mark Agents in partnership against the Third Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal, the Patent and Trade Mark Agencies Employees' … Patent and Trade Mark Agents in partnership against the Third Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal, the Patent and Trade Mark Agencies Employees' Union, the employees of Depenning and Depenning represented by Patent and Trade Mark Agencies Employees' Union

Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1999SC22; JT1998(7)SC243; 1998(5)SCALE655; (1998)8SCC1; [1998]Supp2SCR359; MANU/SC/0664/1998; AIR 1998 SC 22

they are, the United States of America, they started the gyrating movement by applying for registration of their Trade Mark 'WHIRLPOOL' to the Registrar of the Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, which has since been … Act, 19S8 and which for the sake of brevity, shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act'. The Trade Mark was duly registered and a Certificate of Registration was issued on 31st of July, 1957 which was renewed

S.S. White Burs Inc. 1145, Towbin Avenue, Lakewood, New Jersey, Usa vs ...

Court: Delhi

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) No. 448 of 2022 has been filed by S.S. WhiteBurs Inc. [‘Petitioner’] seeking cancellation/rectification of of Trade Mark Registration No. 2147676 in Class 5 and Class 10 for the mark ‘S.S. WHITE’, standing in the name … (COMM.IPD-TM) No. 299 of 2023 has, in turn, been filed by the Respondent seeking cancellation/rectification of the Petitioner’s Trade Mark Registration No. 609897 in Class 10 for the mark ‘S.S. WHITEBURS INC’.2. There are currently four cases pending

Mankind Pharma Limited vs Registrar of Trade Marks

Court: Delhi

06.11.2024 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Respondent, refusing the Appellant's Application for registration of the Mark ‘PETKIND’ (“Subject Trade Mark”) bearing Application No. 5157443 (“Application”) in Class 31.2. The Respondent has refused the Application on the ground that … 4648505, which is phonetically and visually similar to theSignature Not Verified C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 13/2025 Page 1 of 10Subject Trade Mark and in respect of similar goods and services and underthe same Class. Therefore, the Application was refused vide

Karan Rathore vs Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Court: Delhi

14(“Impugned Order”) passed by Respondent No. 1, whereby the Appellant’s Opposition bearing No. 1221460 (“Appellant’s Opposition”) to the Trade Mark Application bearing No. 5854000 in Class 12 (“Subject Application”) for the registration of the Mark ‘JBR’ (“Impugned Mark”) … by way of the Deed of Assignment dated 03.05.2023 (“Assignment Deed”). The Appellant’s Mark was registered under the Trade Mark Application bearing No. 2010008 in Class 12 (“Appellant’s Application”), for goods - motor parts.3. It is the Appellant’s

Coldsmiths Retail Services Private Limited vs Registrar of Trade Marks

Court: Delhi

and affirm, present and file all applications and all other paper and documents, etc. to the registrar of Trade Mark or any other office or authority which may be necessary and expedient for all matters towards registration /renewal/transfer/assignment … other office or authority which may be necessary and expedient for all matters towards registration /renewal/transfer/assignment of the Trade Mark/Trademarks on the name of “COLDSMITHS RETAIL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED” registered office at P-121, LGF, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi