Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

Mr. Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. vs M/S Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. on 20 September, 2001

52. The principle that no party who sleeps over his rights should be entitled to relief is well settled. It would squarely apply in the present case. Delay has been too long for granting prohibitory injunctive relief to the respondent. The submission of learned senior counsel for the respondent that they are willing to give an undertaking to compensate the appellants as was done in the case of Whirlpool's case (supra) would thus not be an acceptable arrangement.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - S K Kaul - Full Document

M/S. Veerumal Praveen Kumar vs M/S. Needle Industries (India) Ltd. And ... on 24 August, 2001

9. Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, referred to the documents filed on behalf of the respondents to substantiate its claim of sales and submitted that they were for sales in 1979 in India and the remaining were for the sales in Hongkong and not in India or anywhere else. Thus it was contended that the respondents had failed to establish any worthwhile reputation in the world for the sale of the product of entitle them to any protection in terms of the judgment in N.R. Gongre & Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corporation & Anr. .
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 37 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs Mega International (P) Ltd. on 8 February, 2007

In this behalf Learned Counsel also referred to the judgments of a learned single judge of this Court in Jai Prakash Gupta v. Vishal Aluminum Mfg Co. (1996) PTC (16) 575, and N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation Page 0967 where it was observed that the registration of the said mark prior in point of time to user by the appellant is irrelevant in an action for passing off and the mere presence of the mark in the register maintained by the trademark registry did not prove its user by the persons in whose name the mark was registered and was irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the application for interim injunction unless evidence had been led or was available of the user of registered trademarks.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Stokely Van Camp, Inc. & Anr vs Heinz India Private Ltd. on 10 November, 2010

A trademark is ordinarily used in relation to goods of a manufacturer. A trademark can be registered but ordinarily registration is not granted if the mark falls under sub-sections 1(a) to 1(c) of Section 9. The proviso however, provides for entitlement to registration although ordinarily not permissible under Sections 9 (1) (a) to (c), provided that the mark has acquired a distinctive character as a result of its use prior to registration or is otherwise a well known trademark. Registration is only prima facie evidence of its validity and the presumption of prima facie validity of registration is only a rebuttable presumption, see para 31 of N.R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corp. 1995 (34) DRJ 109 (DB). The right conferred by registration for exclusive use of the trademark in relation to goods is if the registration is valid and which flows from the expression "if valid" occurring in Section 28. The expression "if valid" has been inserted for the purpose that post registration an aggrieved person is entitled to apply for cancellation under Section 57 of the Act even if no suit is filed alleging infringement of the registered trademark. In case a suit is instituted, the court, once there is already a pending action seeking cancellation of the trademark, will stay the suit till the final disposal of the cancellation/rectification proceedings. The court however is still entitled to, in spite of registration, pass any interlocutory order as it deems fit, including but not limited to, granting the injunction or dismissing the FAO(OS) No.488/2010 Page 6 of 14 prayer for injunction. If no cancellation proceedings are pending as on the date of filing of a suit for infringement if the court is satisfied with regard to the plea of invalidity of registration (this language of Section 124(1) (a) (i) co-relates to the expression "if valid" as occurring in Section 28) then the court may raise an issue in the suit and adjourn the case for three months after framing the issues in order to enable the defendant to apply to the Appellate Board for rectification of the register. Even in the circumstances where the court stays the suit for three months and permits a party to apply for cancellation/rectification, the court can pass any interlocutory order as it thinks fit under sub-section 5 of Section 124.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Marico Limited vs Agro Tech Foods Limited on 1 November, 2010

A trademark is ordinarily used in relation to goods of a manufacturer. A trademark can be registered but ordinarily registration FAO(OS) 352/2010 Page 28 of 50 is not granted if the mark falls under sub-sections 1(a) to 1(c) of Section 9. The proviso however, provides for entitlement to registration although ordinarily not permissible under Sections 9 (1) (a) to (c), provided that the mark has acquired a distinctive character as a result of its use prior to registration or is otherwise a well known trademark. Registration is only prima facie evidence of its validity and the presumption of prima facie validity of registration is only a rebuttable presumption, see para 31 of N.R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corp. 1995 (34) DRJ 109 (DB). The right conferred by registration for exclusive use of the trademark in relation to goods is if the registration is valid and which flows from the expression "if valid"
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 60 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Nectar (U.K.) Ltd. vs Herbs Shop India Ltd. & Ors. on 8 August, 2001

25. Mr. Lal, learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand, sought to draw our attention to the facts and figures in respect of the trans-border reputation to establish that the sales were not of such a quantity as would entitle the appellant to any protection in terms of the judgment in Whirlpool Corporations's case (supra). It was thus contended that the appellant cannot have a better right than respondent no.3 and in view of the failure of establishment of any such rights on the basis of trans-border reputation in favor of respondent no.3, the appellant could not get any such rights. Learned counsel referred to the documents filed including legal notice dated 22nd April, 1997 of respondent no.3 to contend that there was no referencer to the licenseing of the rights in favor of the appellant in the said documents. Learned counsel contended that the reference in the legal notice of respondent no.3 dated 10th June, 1997 to a Pound Sterling 50 million worldwide sales for a period of three years was not correct in view of the material on record which would show that the sales of respondent no.3 were only about Pound Sterling 10 million for the period from 1994 to 1996. Lastly it was contended on behalf of respondent no.1 that people in the trade had not heard of the trademark of Appellant and the product had not been launched in India.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1