observation in S.P.
Chinnathambiar v. V.R.P. Chinnathambiar [(1953) 2 MLJ 387,
391] ―Renunciation must be in favour of a person ... must be ignored. In S.P. Chinnathambiar's
case [(1953) 2 MLJ 387] , the document could not operate as a
transfer, because
Smt Satula Devi vs Mr Rajeev Sharma & Ors. on 10 April, 2023
Author: V
statute law relating to infringement of
trade mark is based on the same fundamental principles
as the general law relating to passing off. Though there ... Bench of the Madras High Court
in Subramaniam v. Sundaram , (1963) 1 MLJ 113
considered the propriety of a Court taking note
limitation deserves to be set aside on this aspect. It
is trite law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule ... decree or deed."
16. In the decision reported as (1940) 1 MLJ 32 Minor C.R.Ramaswami
Aiyangar, represented by his mother
Veluswami [AIR 1962 SC 1
: (1962) 1 SCR 929 : 1962 MLJ (Cri) 120] where the
Supreme Court stated that the general principle
Ganeshan
v. Joint Director (2015) 1 MLJ 870, Usha Aggarwal v. Union of
India (2017) SCC-Online (Sikkim) 146, Radhey Mohan Lakhotia
Angle Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. vs Ashok Manchanda & Ors.` on 9 March, 2016
Author: Gita
infringement and passing
off actions are substantially the same in law and the statute law
relating to infringement of trademarks is based on the same ... Abdul Karim Sahib Vs. A. Shanmugha Mudaliar
1967 MLJ 468.
c. CM (M) No.903/2008 titled Arihant Tea Company Vs.
Jayshree
seek such declaration would render the suit prima
facie barred by law and also under Order II Rule 2 CPC since no such
relief ... Mohaned Kassim v. C. Rajaram (1988) 1 MLJ 447, State of
Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar AIR 2000 SC 1099, The
Rajasthan State
Dlf Home Developers Limited vs Shipra Estates Limited & Ors. on 8 November, 2021
Author
