Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. vs Kent Ro Systems Limited & Ors. on 30 May, 2023

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this Signature Not Verified date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(COMM) 596/2022 and connected matter Page 36 of 60 Signing Date:31.05.2023 15:13:18 the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being contested. In these premises, we cannot conclude that a prima facie case has not been disclosed by the respondent-plaintiffs.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr. vs Kaba Infratech Private Limited & Anr. on 6 October, 2022

The said decision of Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., 1995 SCC OnLine Del 310 : AIR 1995 Del 300] was further affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] 30.5. The above were the reasonings from the provisions arising from the plain reading of the Act which gives clear indication that the rights of prior user are superior than that of registration and are unaffected by the registration rights under the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S Narula - Full Document

M/S Turning Point vs Turning Point Institute Private ... on 11 August, 2017

The said decision of Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., 1995 SCC OnLine Del 310 : AIR 1995 Del 300] was further affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I.A. No. 16232/2015 in CS (OS) No. 2368/2015 Page 42 of 63 31.2. The applicability of the said principle can be seen as to which proprietor has generated the goodwill by way of use of the mark/name in the business. The use of the mark/carrying on business under the name confers the rights in favour of the person and generates goodwill in the market. Accordingly, the latter user of the mark/name or in the business cannot misrepresent his business as that of business of the prior right holder. That is the reason why essentially the prior user is considered to be superior than that of any other rights. Consequently, the examination of rights in common law which are based on goodwill, misrepresentation and damage are independent to that of registered rights. The mere fact that both prior user and subsequent user are registered proprietors are irrelevant for the purposes of examining who generated the goodwill first in the market and whether the latter user is causing misrepresentation in the course of trade and damaging the goodwill and reputation of the prior right holder/former user. That is the additional reasoning that the statutory rights must pave the way for common law rights of passing off. (emphasis supplied)
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Peps Industries Private Limited vs Kurlon Limited on 16 March, 2020

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 CS(COMM) 174/2019 Page 31 of 39 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 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
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 13 - M Gupta - Full Document

M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. vs Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors. on 13 September, 2022

The said decision of Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., 1995 Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 277/2019 Page 12 of 19 Digitally Signed By:ATISH GOEL Signing Date:14.09.2022 15:03:39 SCC OnLine Del 310 : AIR 1995 Del 300] was further affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] 30.5. The above were the reasonings from the provisions arising from the plain reading of the Act which gives clear indication that the rights of prior user are superior than that of registration and are unaffected by the registration rights under the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document

Intercity Hotel Gmbh vs Hotel Intercity Delhi & Ors on 13 March, 2019

35. Recently, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Cadbury U.K. Limited & Anr. vs. Lotte India Corporation Ltd., reported in 2014(57) PTC 422 (Delhi) wherein the decision of law relating to trans-border reputation has been further strengthened and has been taken to another level wherein the court has not merely relied upon the decision of Milment (supra) and Whirlpool (supra) but has also extended the principle of trans-border reputation by observing that the existence of a merchant on web pages which are of foreign origin and social media are sufficient to show the trans-border nature of reputation without having any activity in India at the relevant time. Though it is very broad extension of the concept of trans-border reputation, but it is a question of fact in each case as to how the internet documents are sufficient to show the global character of the trademark and the reputation attached to the same. The impact of the said decision which has been given very recently is yet to be seen and analyzed by the other Courts in India in the upcoming times.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - J Nath - Full Document

Kanni Uvaraj vs Poorliya Mobiles World And Electronics on 8 April, 2014

33. The new Act viz., the Trade Marks Act, 1999 recognizes the right of a proprietor of a name mark or a device to seek injunction. A trademark relating to service is also recognized under the new Act. Going one step further, the new Act also recognizes a new concept called 'well known trademark', which in effect gives statutory recognition to the existing law of Trademarks adopted in N.R.Dongre and others Vs. Whirlpool Corporation and another (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized a right of a foreign manufacturer and registered trademark holder to injunct a person from infringing his trademark in India. Page No.25/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Timken Company vs Timken Services Private Ltd. on 30 May, 2013

In N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corp. 1996 (16) PTC 476 (Del.), the Division Bench of this Court recognised the distinctiveness and uniqueness of the word „Whirlpool‟ which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision 1996 (16) PTC 583 (SC). „Whirlpool‟ is otherwise a dictionary word and was not registered in India as a trade mark. The Court considering the entire gamut of the case held that the reputation of the trade mark „Whirlpool‟ in respect of washing machines has travelled transborder to India and, therefore, although the respondents are not the registered proprietor of the trade mark „Whirlpool‟ in India in respect of washing machines can maintain action of passing off against the appellants in respect of the use of the same which has been registered in their favour in respect of the same goods. The Court also held that registration of a trade mark under the Act would be irrelevant in an action of passing off. 7.1.31.
Delhi High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 12 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next