Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing B.S. Ramappa And Anr. vs B. Monappa, Trading As Indian National ... on 17 June, 1968

Pritam Dass, Son Of Shri Budhu Ram, ... vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi, Trading As Anil ... on 12 January, 2005

Instead, he chose to request the Board to make a reference to a hand writing expert. We do not find any prima facie reason for making such a reference. The only reason that respondent No.1 has put her signatures in Devnagiri script on a document written in English is no reason in itself for making such a reference. The judgment in the case of B.S. Ramappa v. B. Monappa has rightly laid down the principles in this area of trade mark laws. However, the facts in that case are materially different from the instant case. We do not intend to repeat here the principles of law laid down in that case. However, it shall be instructive to make a brief mention of the facts of the matter as distilled by the learned Chief Justice Rajamannar in that case. It shall be sufficient to reproduce the relevant portion in the said order which follows:-
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cluett Peabody And Co. Inc. vs Super Threads (India) And The Registrar ... on 30 November, 2007

7. Learned Counsel next contended that the observation of the respondent No. 2, that the adoption of impugned mark by the respondent No. 1 is bona fide, is erroneous for various reasons. Firstly, no evidence has been filed by the respondent No. 1 for its claimed use of mark since November, 1994 and the invoice filed for the earliest use is of April, 1995 and as such the use claimed is false amounting to fraud. Where a registration has been obtained by suppression of a material fact or by making a false representation, such registration is made without sufficient cause and can be said to have been obtained by fraud as was held by the High Court of Madras in the case of R.S. Ramappa v. B. Monappa and Anr. .
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. Doraisamy Gounder Eswaramurthy And ... vs B. Mohamed Yousuff And Ors. on 6 August, 2004

6. The learned Counsel for the appellants also contended that as per Section 18(1) of the said Act, only a proprietor of the Trade Mark can seek for registration. By virtue of the agreement entered into between the first respondent and his brothers in the year 1988, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have no right whatsoever either in Trade Mark or in the business. In such circumstances, the joint application filed by the three respondents herein would amount to false declaration claiming the proprietorship of the Trade mark when in fact, they are not the joint proprietors. In such a circumstance, the application filed by the respondents cannot be considered to be one by the proprietors of the Trade Mark and consequently, the same is liable to be rejected. She also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court reported in AIR 1957 Madras 76, B.S. Ramappa v. B. Monappa and Anr.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Safari International And Anr. vs Subhash Gupta And Ors. on 28 July, 2006

Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and Anr. is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of Anr. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to Anr. case is not at all decisive.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document
1