Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Kane has put reliance on judgments in cases of Alkem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Alchem (India) Ltd. (Notice of Motion No. 3028 of 1988 in Suit No. 3198 of 1988 decided on 27-11-1990 by Srikrishna, J. of Bombay High Court); Indian Aluminimum Co. Ltd. v. Indals (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. (Notice of Motion No. 7 of 1990 in Suit No. 3648 of 1989 decided on 25-11-1991 by Jhunjhunuwala, J. of Bombay High Court); Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Ltd. (Notice of Motion No. 950 of 1995 in Suit No. 1055 of 1955 decided on 28-4-1995 by Jhunjhunuwala, J. of Bombay High Court); S. M. Chemicals & Electronies Ltd. v. M/s. Symtronics (Notice of Motion No. 38 of 1975 in Suit No. 25 of 1975 decided on 7-8-1975 by Rege, J. of Bombay High Court); In the matter of The Pianolist Company Ltd. reported in (1906) 23 RPC 774; In the matter of M/s. R. T. Engineering & Electronics Co., reported in AIR. 1972 Bombay 157; Stringfellow v. McCain Foods (GB) Ltd. reported in (1984) RPC 501; M/s. Victory Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The District Judge, Ghaziabad ; sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Shamrao Maskar ; In the matter of John Taylor Peddie reported in 61 RPC 31; Parker-Knoll Ltd. & Parker-Knoll (Textiles) Ltd. v. Knoll International Britain (Furniture & Textiles) Ltd. reported in 1961 RPC 346; Bajaj Electricals Ltd. v. Metals & Allied Products. Bombay ; Turton v. Turton reported in (1889) 42 Ch. D 128; Parker-Knoll Ltd. v. Knoll International Ltd. reported in 1962 RPC 265; Boswell-Wilkie Circus (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Brian Boswell Circus (Pvt.) Ltd. reported in (1986) FSR 479; County Soud Pic. v. Ocean Sound Ltd. reported in (1991) FSR 367; Harold Lee (Mantles) Ld. And Harlee LD. v. Harold Harley (Fashions) LD. and HarotdHarley (Sales) LD. reported in 71 RPC 57: K. G. Khosla Compressors v. Khosla Extraktions Ltd. Poddar Tyres Ltd. v. Bedrook Sales Corporation, and Optrex India Ltd. v. Optrex Ltd. (Appeal No. 381 of 1989 from Notice of Motion No. 2165 of 1987 in Suit No. 2436 of 1987 decided on 15th and 17th November, 1989 by Desai and Kenia, JJ.).

(7) John Haig & Coy. LD. v. John D. D. Haig LD., reported in (1957) 16 RPC 381;
(8) Fine Cotton Spinners and Doublers' Association LD. And John Cash & Sons LD. v. Harwood Cash & Co. LD., reported in 24 RPC 533;
(9) Kingston, Miller & Co. Ltd. v. Thomas Kingston & Co. Ltd., reported in (1912) 1 CD 575;
(10) Parker-Knoll Ltd. v. Knoll International Ltd., reported in 1962 RPC 265;
(11) Boswell-Wilkie Circus (Pty.) Ltd. v. Brian BNoswell Circus (Pty.) Ltd., reported in (1985) FSR 434;
(18) Ewing v. Buttercup Margarine Co. Ltd., reported in (1917) 2 Ch. 1;
(19) Sarabhai International Ltd. v. Sara Exports International, reported in (1987) PC 269 : (AIR 1988 Delhi 134);
(20) Saville Perfumery LD. v. June Perfect LD. And F. W. Woolworth & Co. LD., reported in 58 RPC 147;
(21) Wright, Layman & Umney LD. v. Wright, reported in 66 RPC 149;
(22) British Bala Shoe Co. Ltd. v. Czechoslovak Bata Co. Ltd., reported in 64 RPC 72;
(23) Sheraton Corporation of America v. Sheraton Motels Ltd., reported in (1964) RPC 202;

Sturtevant Mill Co. of USA Ltd. (1936 (3) All ER 137) (supra) and John Haig & Co. LD. v. John D. D. Haig LD. (1957 (16) RPC 381) (supra) the same view has been taken. Prior to the decision in the Parker-Knoll's case by the House of Lords, as held in the case of Fine Cotton Spinners & Doublers Association Ltd. and John Cash Sons Ld. (24 RPC 533) (supra), a company could be incorporated with the personal name of the promoter provided the promoter carried on business in that name and the entire goodwill was taken over by the company. However, in view of law laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Parker-Knoll, a company can be prevented from using a particular name even if it does not cause anything more than confusion. The Supreme Court of South Africa (Natal Provincial Division) after reviewing English authorities and comparing South African and English Authorities in Boswell-Wilkie Circus (Pty) Ltd. v. Brian Boswell Circus (Pty) Ltd. (1985 FSR 434) has taken the same view. On the facts of instant case, ratio of the decision in the case of Harold Lee (Maudes) LD and Harlee LD v. Harold Harley (Fashions) I.D and Harold Harley (Sales) LD (71 RPC 57) (supra) has no application. In the case of Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Bombay v. Metals & Allied Products, Bombay (supra) the Division Bench of our Court has while granting injunction put reliance on Parker-Knoll's case decided by House of Lords wherein Lord Morris while opening the speech, observed (at p. 170 of AIR) :--