Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.26 seconds)

Pidilite Industries Limited vs Poma-Ex Products And 15 Ors on 2 August, 2017

83. In my view, merely because the application of the plaintiff for rectification of the registration of the trademark of the defendant is pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, that cannot be a bar against this Court from deciding issue of infringement under Section 28 (1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and to render a prima facie finding on the issue of validity of the registration for a limited purpose for granting interim relief against the defendant. Such prima facie finding, however, rendered by the Court would not affect the outcome of the final conclusions, as may be drawn by such Intellectual Property Appellate Board in the said application filed by the plaintiff. The principle of law laid down by the by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lupin Ltd. Vs. Johnson & Johnson (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 5 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

M/S Kamdhenu Limited vs M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd on 3 November, 2017

Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S P Garg - Full Document

Skipper Limited vs Akash Bansal & Ors on 9 August, 2017

In Lupin Limited (supra) it was held that in cases where the registration of trademark is ex facie illegal, fraudulent or shocks the conscience of the Court, the Court is not powerless to refuse to grant an injunction, but for establishing these grounds, a very high threshold of prima facie proof is required. The defendants have failed to demonstrate that the adoption of the mark by the plaintiff is fraudulent or illegal or shocks the conscience of the Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 4 - S Sen - Full Document
1