Search Results Page

Search Results

41 - 50 of 54 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014

M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd & Anr vs M/S L'Oreal India Private Limited & Anr on 14 November, 2022

32. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents has relied on several judgments during the course of arguments but having gone through them this Court is of the view that none of these judgments come to the aid of the Respondents. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Lupin Ltd. (supra), to contend that prima facie satisfaction of the Court to stay the trial under Section 124 of the Act is also not enough to refuse grant of interim injunction. It is only in exceptional circumstances such as the registration being ex-facie illegal or fraudulent that the Court will refuse interim injunction in favour of the registered proprietor of the trademark and a heavy burden lies on the Defendant to rebut the strong presumption in law to the validity of a registered trademark. There can be no dispute on the proposition of law laid down in the said case.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Jagdish G. Kamath And 5 Ors vs Lime And Chilli Hospitality Services on 11 March, 2015

21. Mr. Dhond's argument that the Defendant cannot examine the validity of the Plaintiffs' registration at the interlocutory stage is one that has now been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Lupin Ltd v Johnson & Johnson.7 The Full Bench rejected the view taken in Maxheal Pharmaceuticals v Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.,8 itself based on the view in Hindustan Embroidery Mills v K. Ravindra & Co.,9 that it is not the 'practice' of this Court to consider the validity of a registration at an interlocutory stage and that while the mark remains on the register, though wrongly, it is desirable that others not imitate it. The Full Bench held that where the registration of the trade mark is ex-facie illegal, fraudulent or shocks the conscience of the Court, the Court is not powerless to refuse an injunction; but to establish these grounds, a very high degree of prima facie proof is required.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - G S Patel - Full Document

Archer Tradeing House Pvt. Ltd. And Anr vs Eurobond Industries Pvt.Ltd on 15 June, 2015

11. A clear upshot of this discussion, which emerges as an irresitable minimum reference, is that there is no case whatsoever of the Plaintiffs' trade mark registration being ex facie illegal or fraudulent or shocking to the conscience of the Court, so as to come within the dictum of the Full Bench in Lupin Ltd. (supra), and require the Court to decline injunctive relief to the Plaintiffs.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - N M Jamdar - Full Document

International Foodstuffs Co. Llc vs Parle Products Pvt Ltd. And Anr on 11 April, 2016

16. Mr. Tulzapurkar's next point again questions registration, but again this is something I choose to leave open for the purposes of this Notice of Motion. I do not think it is necessary to discuss this. He submits that this case falls within the three narrow exceptions mentioned by the Supreme Court in the Full Bench decision in Lupin Limited v Johnson & Johnson. Perhaps. But that can await another day. It is certainly unnecessary for a decision on this Notice of Motion.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - G S Patel - Full Document

Frito Lay North America Inc And 2 Ors vs Balaji Wefers Pvt. Ltd on 21 January, 2020

7. Registration of a design entitles the registered proprietor to prohibit any person, for the purpose of sale, to apply or cause to be applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered, the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, except with a licence or written consent of the registered proprietor. Section 22 (1) of the Designs Act, 2000 prohibits such piracy. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 provides for penalties for contravention of the rule against piracy contained in Sub- section (1). As provided in Sub-section (4) of Section 22, any ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Section 19 can be availed of as a defence to an action against piracy of a registered design. What Section 22 envisages is that a registered proprietor of a design, when he approaches a court with a case of piracy, must show that he has registration for the subject design and the defendant's use of infringing design which is either an obvious or a fraudulent imitation of his registered design. No doubt, the defendant can defend the action on the ground that the plaintiffs' registered design is liable to be cancelled under Section 19 of the Designs Act, but then the onus of setting up such case of cancellation is squarely on the defendant and he must satisfy the Court, in an interim application on a prima facie basis, that it is so liable to be 7 / 11 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 14:58:05 ::: 5- IA 1 of 2019 in COMIPL 1372 of 2019.doc Tikam cancelled. That burden, as in a similar case for a registered trademark, as held by our Full Bench in Lupin Ltd. vs. Johnson and Johnson1, is heavy; it is not sufficient, at the interlocutory stage, to merely make out an arguable case on the invalidity of the plaintiff's registration and on that basis, seek denial of relief to the plaintiff. It must be shown that the defendant has a good prima faice case for cancellation of the plaintiff's registration.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S C Gupte - Full Document

Suresh Kumar Garg vs . Pramod Kumar on 1 May, 2015

The counsel TM­2/15 Page No. 9/11 for plaintiff, in order to establish and prove his case has relied upon judgment 2015 (61) PTC 1 [Bom] [FB] titled Lupin Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Johnson and Johnson & Anr. wherein it was held that "There is nothing in the Act to suggest that any different parameters for grant of injunction are required to be applied when a plaintiff seeks injunction on the basis of registered trade mark - Relief of injunction being a relief in equity, when the Court is convinced that the grant of interim injunction would lead to highly inequitable results, Court is not powerless to refuse such relief".
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3 4 5   6 Next