Enterprise Holdings, Inc vs Enterprise Auto Rentals on 11 March, 2014
In para 33 of the said decision, Dr. S. Murlidhar, J. has summarized
the following principles:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (2.04 seconds)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/
Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014
"13. ...... 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).
Citigroup Inc. And Anr. vs Citicorp Business & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ... on 24 November, 2014
See N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (DB); J.
N. Nichols (Vimto) Ltd. v. Rose & Thistle, 1994 PTC 83
(DB); Calvin Klein Inc. v. International Apparels, (1995) FSR
515 : 1995 IPLR 83; Conagra Inc. v. McCain Foods (Supra)
at p. 133."
Shakti Bhog Foods Limited vs Parle Products Private Limited on 23 December, 2014
"13. ...... 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).
M/S S. Oliver Bernd Freier Gmbh & Co. Kg. vs M/S Rasul Exports & Anr. on 5 February, 2014
40. It may be noticed at this stage that even prior to the TM Act
1999 the Supreme Court in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation
1996 PTC (16) recognised the concept of cross-border reputation
when it upheld the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
which granted a temporary injunction in favour of a Plaintiff based
abroad.
Jane Norman Limited vs Jane Norman Retail Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 15 May, 2014
In the landmark decision of N.R. Dongre & Ors. v Whirlpool Corpn. &
Anr. reported at AIR 1995 Delhi 300, following observations were made
by another bench of this court with respect to trans border reputation
acquired by a mark:
Cisco Technology, Inc. vs Santosh Tantia & Ors. on 29 May, 2014
40. It may be noticed at this stage that even prior to the TM Act
1999 the Supreme Court in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation
1996 PTC (16) recognised the concept of cross-border reputation
when it upheld the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
which granted a temporary injunction in favour of a Plaintiff based
abroad.
Staples Inc & Anr vs Staples Paper Converters Pvt Ltd on 17 October, 2014
A two Judge bench of the
Supreme Court, besides on N.R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corporation (1996)
5 SCC 714, relied also on Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs. Cadila
Pharmaceuticals Limited (2001) 5 SCC 73 and held, (i) that nowadays the
field of medicine is of an international character; the Court has to keep in
mind the possibility that with the passage of time, some conflict may occur
between the use of the mark by the Milmet Oftho Industries in India and the
user thereof by Allergan Inc. overseas; that the Court must ensure that public
interest is in no way imperiled; (ii) that nowadays goods are widely
advertised in newspapers, periodicals, magazines and other media which is
available in the country and which results in a product acquiring a
worldwide reputation; (iii) that if a mark in respect of a drug is associated
with Allergan Inc. worldwide, it would lead to an anomalous situation if an
identical mark in respect of a similar drug is allowed to be used in India; (iv)
however multinational corporations, which have no intention of coming to India or introducing their
product in India should not be allowed to throttle an Indian Company by not permitting it to
IA No.12835/2009 in CS(OS) No.1879/2009 Page 26 of 34
sell a product in India, if the Indian Company has genuinely adopted the
mark and developed the product and is first in the market; (v) that the
ultimate test should be who is first in the market; and, (vi) that the mere fact
that Allergan Inc. had not been using the mark in India would be irrelevant if
they were first in the world market.
Cadbury Uk Limited & Anr. vs Lotte India Corporation Ltd. on 24 January, 2014
30.9 When the matter was taken up in appeal, the Supreme Court in N. R.
Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation (16) PTC 583 (SC) agreed with the
High Court.