Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks act 1999 47 of 1999 section 49 registration as registered user Page 2 of about 3,039 results (0.186 seconds)

Neon Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... nothing in this act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered user of registered trade mark to interfere with or restrain the use by any person of a trade mark identical with or nearly resembling it in relation to goods or services in relation to which that person or a predecessor in title of his has continuously used that trade mark from a date prior (a) to the use of the first-mentioned trade mark in relation to those goods or services be the proprietor or a predecessor in title of his; or (b) to the date of registration of the first-mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services in the name of the proprietor ..... this section palpably holds that a proprietor of a trade mark does not have the right to prevent the use by another party of an identical or similar mark where that user commenced prior to the user or date of registration of the proprietor. ..... 7 section 34 of the trade marks act, 1999 (the act) deserves reproduction herein:34. ..... while the case of the plaintiff-respondents is furthered by the fact that their user commenced prior to that of the defendant-appellant, the entirety of the section needs to be taken into consideration, in that it gives rights to a subsequent user when its user is prior to the user of the proprietor and prior to the date of registration of the proprietor, whichever is earlier. .....

Skipper Limited Vs. Akash Bansal and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

..... section 29(5) of the trade marks act, 1999 reads as follows: 29(5) a registered trade mark is infringed by a person if he uses such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his trade name, or name of his business concern or part of the name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered . ..... the two applications for the registration of the trade mark contained different dates of its user by the defendants and no possible explanation for antedating for user after receiving the cease and desist notice. ..... the learned senior counsel referred to the applications made on behalf of the respondents submitted that this document would go to show that the change of date of user in the registration application is a fraudulent and dishonest attempt by the respondents to counter the cease and desist notice. ..... now, section 44 is in wide terms, and it does provide in terms that no registration shall interfere with any bona fide user by a person of his own name. ..... it is, thus, submitted that if in this proceeding, the defendants are able to establish that user of a common surname could not have been granted registration at all, mere registration of the mark bansal . ..... another application was made on the self-same date for registration of the device mark antedating the date of user to 1st april, 2012. .....

The Timken Company Vs. Timken Services Private Ltd.

Court : Delhi

..... section 29 of the trade marks act, 1999 section 29 mandates that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who not being the registered proprietor uses in the course of a trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to the trade mark, in relation to any goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark. ..... each other, the exclusive right to the use of any of those trade marks shall not (except so far as their respective rights are subject to any conditions or limitations entered on the register) be deemed to have been acquired by any one of those persons as against any other of those persons merely by registration of the trade marks but each of those persons has otherwise the same rights as against other persons (not being registered users using by way of permitted use) as he would have if he were the ..... ), the defendants acquired rights on account of user vis-vis rights acquired by the plaintiff on account of registration only, the plaintiffs trade mark arrow registered in india since 1955-1960 but not used in india for a period of more than 35 years whereas defendants adoption of the trade mark arrow in 1985 prior in india; the defendants filed proceedings for rectification / removal of registered trade mark of the plaintiff on grounds of nonuse and the interim injunction was not denied due to delay per se but due to non .....

S.v.t Products Vs. S.s Pandian And Sons

Court : Karnataka

..... the expression nothing in this act shall entitle the proprietor or registered user of a trade mark to interfere with or use by any - 11 - person of a trade mark in section 34 (1) of the act of 1999 speaks loud and clear about two things namely, (a) prior user s right to use a trade mark, even if the trade mark or similar trade mark is registered subsequently in the name of another. ..... unless it is shown that the registration of the trade mark in question is ex-facie impermissible, or that registration is granted in gross violation of the mandate of the provisions of the act of 1999, the court has to take a view that the trade mark which is registered is prima facie valid.42. ..... section 9(1) of the act of 1999 provides for refusal of registration of a trade mark by the authority - 16 - under the act of 1999 on the grounds enumerated therein. ..... proviso to section 9(1) of the act of 1999 enables the registration of a trade mark if it has acquired a distinctive character as a result of its use; or if it is a well- known trade mark. ..... the expression the registrar shall not refuse (on such use being proved) to register the second mentioned trade mark by reason of only of the registration of the first mentioned trade mark also enables the registrar to register the prior user s trade mark even if the trade mark or similar trade mark is already registered. .....

Anwar Mohammad Khan Son of Sri Niyamatullah Khan Vs. Sri Taj Mohammad ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2166

..... food products 2005 (1) crc 361 in relation with section 27 of the act, 1999, the apex court has held that if neither of the party has a registered trade mark as on the date of filing of the suit section 27 of the act, 1999 cannot stand in the way of entertaining the claim of the plaintiff and in granting the plaintiff an injunction in case he or it is in position to show prima-facie case that it was prior user of its mark. ..... reference is made to the provisions of section 71 under which the applications for registration of certification trade marks shall be moved before the registrar in the prescribed manner by the person proposed to be registered as the proprietor thereof and sub-clause (2) of the said section provides that the provisions of sections 18, 19 and 22 shall apply in relation to an application under section 18 subject to the modification that references therein regarding acceptance of an application shall be construed as references to authorization to proceed with an application. ..... prima facie the respondent-plaintiffs seem to have achieved certain goodwill in their business by the trade mark, name and get up in a period of 12 years (use of trade mark and registration under copyright act) and the chances of an invasion of their proprietary rights by the appellant defendant which create real and tangible risk resulting in damages are present and they are entitled to protection. .....

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. B. Mahajan and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2007(97)DRJ140; LC2007(2)375; 2007(35)PTC265(Del)

..... the reliance placed on section 29(4) of the trade marks act, 1999 by the plaintiff is of no avail, since the defendants are also the registered owners of the trademark canonhold. 30. in n.r ..... , a perusal of the defendants product, as filed by plaintiff revealed that not only it was using the plaintiffs registered trade mark canon, the symbol of trademark registration, ie, , appeared next to the infringing user on the packaging. ..... my view, the plaintiff cannot after more than a decade, now turn around and seek to prevent a registered user of the mark in respect of goods (excluded in its own registration) from using the said mark. ..... however, in the present case, the defendants are also the registered users of the trademark canonhold, and the registration of the plaintiff specifically excludes locks, nuts and bolts. ..... cannot be ignored that the plaintiff though has obtained, registration of the mark canon in respect of the goods in class 6 but it has till date not used the said mark on any goods falling under class 6 and the defendant's submission that the plaintiff is holding on to the said mark merely to block the adoption and user of the said mark by other entities needs consideration. ..... the court held that the mere registration of the mark without proof of actual concurrent user was not relevant unless such evidence was available or led before the ..... 2 was an earlier registrant of the mark canonhold in the particular classes, the prior user of the mark canon by the plaintiff would get .....

Shakti Electricals (P) Ltd., Vs. New Shakti Radios and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... submit that a mere concurrent use is not sufficient for the purpose of section 12 of the trade marks act, 1999 [corresponding to section 12 (3) of the act] but the concurrent use should be honest concurrent use and the honesty of adoption and user is the sine quo non for the application of section 12 of the trade marks act, 1999 ..... goods of the same description or goods having trade connection would be likely to cause deception or confusion within the meaning of section 11 (a) of the act-which is bar to the registration; that the registration of the trade mark of respondent no.1 is disentitled to protection in a court of law and as such the registration is prohibited under section 11 (e) of the act; that in view of the appellants registered trade mark no.311628-b, section 12 (1) of the act is a bar to the registration applied for; that due to the said registration and prior use, the appellant is the ..... proprietor and hence, the respondent no.1 cannot be the proprietor of the trade mark applied for within the meaning of section 18 (1) of the act; .....

Ranbaxy Labratories Limited Vs. Universal TwIn Labs

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR124; 2008(3)BomCR160; (2008)110BOMLR400; LC2008(1)266; 2008(36)PTC675(Bom)

..... the registration of the word mark by the plaintiff confers upon the plaintiff, the exclusive right to use the mark and an entitlement to sue for infringement under sections 28 and 29 of the trade marks act, 1999. ..... be restrained by an order and injunction of this hon'ble court from in any manner using in relation to any medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations meant for sale in india or export outside india, the impugned mark vonigel and/or any other mark deceptively similar to plaintiffs registered trade mark volini and copyright of artistic work associated with the plaintiffs'product volini so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants goods as and for the goods of the plaintiffs; (c) that ..... competing products.the supreme court observed as follows:.before the applicant can seek to derive assistance for the success of his application from the presence of a number of marks having one or more common features which occur in his mark also, he has to prove that these marks had acquired a reputation by user in the market....the series of marks containing the common element or elements therefore only assist the applicant when these marks are in extensive use in the market. .....

Kores (India) Limited Vs. Whale Stationery Products Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR276; 2008(3)MhLj523; LC2008(1)155; 2008(36)PTC463(Bom)

..... that being the position, the action by the plaintiff for infringement can validly be founded on the rights of the plaintiff as a registered proprietor under sections 28 and 29 of the trade marks act, 1999. ..... pharmaceutical company of india 80 bombay law reporter 73, a learned single judge of this court considered the requirement of a continuous user from a date prior to the registration of the other mark in section 33 of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958. ..... nothing in this act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered user of a registered trade mark to interfere with or restrain the use by any person of a trade mark identical with or nearly resembling it in relation to goods or services in relation to which that person or a predecessor in title of his has continuously used that trade mark from a date prior ' (a) to the use of the first mentioned trade mark in relation to those goods or services by the proprietor or a predecessor in title of his; or (b) to the date of registration of the first mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services in the name of the proprietor ..... in the present case, primafacie at this stage, there is no material to indicate a continuous prior user of the mark by the defendant within the territory of india prior to the registration of the mark by the plaintiff. .....

Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Chandra Paints and Brush Industry and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2010(1)71

..... in an action for passing off, it is no defense that the defendant's trade mark is registered and that of the prior user is not so registered.in the above case the court had to deal with interpretation of section 28 read with section 30 of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 which was repealed and replaced by the trade marks act, 1999. ..... (except so far as their respective rights are subject to any conditions or limitations entered on the register) be deemed to have been acquired by any one of those persons as against any other of those persons merely by registration of the trade marks but each of those persons has otherwise the same rights as against other persons (not being registered users using by way of permitted use) as he would have if he were the sole registered proprietor' it is submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to an ex-parte ad interim injunction.11. ..... the first defendant has filed an application under order xxxix rule 4 for vacation of the said order on the premise that that the plaintiff was fully aware that the defendant had applied for registration of his trade mark 'great asian' on 25.10.2003 itself when the said trade mark was published in the trade mark journal mega 4, as on the very same page a product of the plaintiff by the name of 'apcolite' also appeared. .....