Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 9 July, 2007

Dorabjee & Company Private Limited Thr. ... vs Jehangir Nariman Dorabjee And Ors on 4 December, 2018

79. As to the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Another, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 952, relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, in that case, the application was made for registration in the name of 'AGGARWAL SWEET CORNER'. Hence, the question involved was, 'whether the word 'AGGARWAL' can be registered as a trade mark?' In 48/59 AO(St.)-25524-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:50:58 ::: that context, it was held that the word 'AGGARWAL' being common surname and also the surname of a particular cast, it cannot, by itself, be registered under Section 9(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, except upon evidence of its distinctiveness. Thus Judgment, therefore, cannot be useful in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr vs Goenka Institute Of Education & ... on 24 February, 2009

"35. Saving for use of name, address or description of goods or services.--Nothing in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered user of a registered trade mark to interfere with any bona fide use by a person of his own name or that of his place of business, or of the name, or of the name of the place of business, of any of his predecessors in business, or the use by any person of any bona fide description of the character or quality of his goods or services.‖ Relying upon the above said provision, learned Senior counsel submitted that the defendant cannot be restrained from using their own name. Various decisions in support of his submission are relied upon at the bar on this question (Rajinder Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Anr., 2007 (35) PTC 616; Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal 2009(1) AD Delhi 392 Para 10 and S. Chivers & Sons vs. S. Chivers & Co. 17 RPC (15) page No.420.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - M Singh - Full Document

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

The plaintiff cannot claim any order of injunction restraining the defendant from using the name "Bansal" as no injunction can be passed over the use of common surnames. It is submitted that judicial opinion on this point is consistent and in this regard reliance has been placed on Bagla & Co. v. Bagla Cosmetics reported at 2000 PTC 355, Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India & Anr. reported at 2007 (35) PTC 616, Goenka Institute of Education & Research v. Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr. reported at AIR 2009 Del 139 and Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy v. Jaggi Ayurvedic Research Foundation reported at 2010(42) PTC 769 (Del.) It is submitted that the aforesaid decisions would show that the Courts have refused to grant injunction in relation to common surnames, i.e., 'Bagla', 'Aggarwal', 'Goenka' and 'Jaggi'.
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 4 - S Sen - Full Document

Educare Limited & Anr vs S.K. Sachdev & Anr on 14 November, 2014

44. Mr.Miglani has further relied upon Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India and Anr., reported at 2007 (35) PTC 616, and also relied upon Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal & Ors., reported at 2009 (40) PTC 67 Del. (DB) to show that user per se does not establish distinctiveness. In both the aforesaid cases, the Court has held that though the mark „Aggarwal sweets‟ has been used for a long time but the same is not distinctive considering the nature of the mark and its common use.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

M/S Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs Prs Agarwal Packeers & Movers Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 5 February, 2014

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the plaint, application and the documents filed on record. Having regard to facts of this case and taking into consideration that plaintiffs have been vigilant in protecting their intellectual property rights and they have also filed various suits in this Court, wherein interim orders have been granted by this Court; para 11 of the judgments rendered in the case of Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal (supra), sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiffs, wherein it is recognised that a mark by the name of the caste or surname can be registered in case there is evidence of distinctiveness even under the old Act; and also taking into consideration the sales figures, the amount spent on advertisement and other material, which has been placed on record, which gives evidence of distinctiveness along with the fact that another Single Judge of this Court has granted an ex parte decree CS(OS) 335/2014 Page 6 of 7 by reaching a conclusion that the mark of the plaintiffs is a well known mark, this Court is satisfied that in case injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, defendants, their Directors, partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors, suppliers, affiliates, subsidiaries, franchise, representatives, group companies, are restrained from using the trade mark Agarwal, PRS Agarwal Packers and Movers, corporate name or part of a corporate name, trade mark and domain names so as to infringe the registered trade marks of the plaintiffs.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document
1