Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Srmb Srijan Private Limited vs Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited on 30 January, 2019

Srmb Srijan Private Ltd vs Super Smelters Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 2019

The petitioner has relied upon an order passed in GA 261 of 2019 in the case of SRMB Srijan Private Limited vs. Sreegopal Concrete Private Limited passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 30th January, 2019. In the said order, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim order of injunction holding, inter alia, that non-registration of the design contained in the trade pattern does not take away the right of the persons who uses the said design contained in the trade pattern as a trademark to sue for passing off.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Super Smelters Limited & Ors vs Srmb Srijan Private Limited on 18 December, 2019

Ltd. v. Shreegopal Concrete Pvt. Ltd., G.A. No. 261 of 2019 in C.S. No. 15 of 2015. The cancellation of a design monopoly on the ground of prior publication really means that the proprietor of the design had no monopoly over its design in the first place. However, the recognition that there is no design monopoly on a mark does not mean that there can be no trade mark monopoly on the said mark. A mark can, without being original or outside the public domain in the context of designs, ceteris paribus, develop distinctiveness as the signifier of the proprietor's product. To refuse to recognise that the said mark has become monopolised by the proprietor as a trade mark merely because the mark is also a design that has been cancelled due to prior publication would offend the very purpose of trade marks law and do nothing to extend the purpose of designs law. Thus, the cancelation of a design on the ground that it has been previously published or it lacks novelty under the Designs Act would not be a ground for refusal of registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or the recognition of a mark as a trade mark in a passing off action. Now, it must be noted that, as has been explained above in relation to the first issue, a design which is purely functional is not registrable under the Designs Act. So, a design which has been cancelled on that ground under Section 19(e) of the Designs Act may not be registered or recognised as a trade mark due to the principle of functionality under Section 9(3)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document
1