Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Hindustan Pencils Ltd. vs Aparna Enamel Industries on 8 May, 2006

Infosys Technologies Ltd. vs Park Infosys And Ors. on 10 January, 2007

In the judgment dated 8th May, 2006 rendered in CS(OS) 1528/2003 entitled Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Aparna Enamel Industries reported at 2006 (131) DLT 65, the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction as well as damages against the defendant on allegations of infringement of its trade mark and copyright as well as deceptive passing off by the defendant in respect of the plaintiff's trademarks 'Natraj' and 'Apsara'. Defendants were only seeking to make a difference by spelling 'Nataraj' as spelt by the plaintiff as 'Natraj'. The Court on consideration of the matter passed a decree of permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from using the offending trademarks 'Natraj' and 'Apsara'.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - G Mittal - Full Document

Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs Debashis Patnaik And Ors. on 15 January, 2007

38. It would be also instructive to consider the principles on which damages was awarded in the judgment dated 8th May, 2006 rendered in CS(OS) 1528/2003 entitled Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Aparna Enamel Industries reported at 2006 (131) DLT 65. In this case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction as well as damages against the defendant on allegations of infringement of its trade mark and copyright as well as deceptive passing off by the defendant in respect of the plaintiff's trademarks `Nataraj' and `Apsara'. Defendants were only seeking to make a difference by spelling `Nataraj' as spelt by the plaintiff, as `Natraj'. The Court on consideration of the matter passed a decree of permanent injunction offending the trademarks `Natraj' and `Apsara'.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - G Mittal - Full Document

Bda Private Limited vs Paul P. John And Ors. on 1 April, 2008

18. It was further contended by Mr Jain that the provision as to fees is given in Rule 11 of the said Rules. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 11 specifically provides, subject to the provisions of Rule 25(19), that where a fee is payable in respect of filing of a document and where the document is filed without fee or with insufficient fee, such document shall be deemed not to have been filed for the purposes of any proceedings under these rules. It was contended by Mr Jain that the notice of opposition in Form TM-5 requires a fee to be paid at the time of filing. Since the fees were paid only on 15.04.2004, the notice of opposition in Form TM-5 would be deemed not to have been filed on 31.03.2004 but only on 15.04.2004 Consequently, the notice of opposition was clearly beyond time and was ex facie liable to be rejected on this ground alone. This is exactly what the Deputy Registrar did in passing the order dated 17.07.2007 and, therefore, there is no question of the plaintiff's plea being prima facie tenable. Mr Jain relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Aptudat Industries 1993 PTC 65 which was rendered in respect of Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which is similar to the provisions of Section 124 of the said Act to contend that for invoking the provisions of Section 111 of the 1958 Act it would be necessary that rectification application ought to have been pending before institution of the suit. However, I am of the view that this decision is not relevant for the purposes of considering Section 124(1)(ii) of the said Act where the issue relates to the prima facie tenability of the plea regarding invalidity of the defendants' registration and the said provision operates where no proceedings for rectification are pending. Consequently, the said decision cited by Mr Jain is clearly inapplicable insofar as the argument under Section 124(1)(ii) of the said Act is concerned.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

M/S Living Media India Ltd. & Anr vs Asad Patel & Ors on 12 April, 2010

In Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. Park Infosys and Ors., 2007 (34) 178 (DEL), the Court, after noticing the observations in Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Popat and Anr., 118 (2005) DLT 580, The Heels v. V.K. Abrol and Anr., CS (OS) No. 1385/2005, Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Aparna Enamel Industries, 131 (2006) DLT 65 and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters, 125 (2005) DLT 504 and discussing the reasoning in detail and distinguishing the facts and law cited in those cases from the case for consideration, held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

M/S. Bikanervala vs M/S. Bikaner Sweets on 24 August, 2009

In Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. Park Infosys and Ors., 2007 (34) 178 (DEL), the court after noticing the observations of the court in Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Popat and Anr. 118 (2005) DLT 580, The Heels v. V.K. Abrol and Anr. CS (OS) No. 1385/2005, Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Aparna Enamel Industries 131 (2006) DLT 65 and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters 125 (2005) DLT 504 and discussing the reasoning of the court in detail and distinguishing the facts and law cited in those cases from the case for consideration before the court held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Infosys Technologies Ltd. vs Bytes Infosys India Pvt. Ltd. on 1 December, 2009

In Park Infosys (supra), the court after noticing the observations of the Court in Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Popat and Anr. 118 (2005) DLT 580, The Heels v. V.K. Abrol and Anr. CS (OS) No. 1385/2005, Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Aparna Enamel Industries 131 (2006) DLT 65 and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters 125 (2005) DLT 504 and discussing the reasoning of the Court in detail and distinguishing the facts and law cited in those cases from the case for consideration before the Court, held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

M/S Castrol Limited & Anr. vs Mr. Jatinder Singh & Anr. on 18 August, 2009

In Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. Park Infosys and Ors., 2007 (34) 178 (DEL), the court after noticing the observations of the court in Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Popat and Anr. 118 (2005) DLT 580, The Heels v. V.K. Abrol and Anr. CS (OS) No. 1385/2005, Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Aparna Enamel Industries 131 (2006) DLT 65 and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters 125 (2005) DLT 504 and discussing the reasoning of the court in detail and distinguishing the facts and law cited in those cases from the case for consideration before the court held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Vardhman Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Vardhman Sarees Pvt. Ltd. on 18 August, 2009

In Infosys Technologies (supra), the court after noticing the observations of the court in Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Popat and Anr 118 (2005) DLT 580, Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters 125 (2005) DLT 504, The Heels v. V.K. Abrol and Anr. CS (OS) No. 1385/2005, Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Aparna Enamel Industries 131 (2006) DLT 65 and discussing the reasoning of the court in detail and distinguishing the facts and law cited in those cases from the case for consideration before the court held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

M/S Rayat Electrical vs M/S Power Pack Products Pvt Ltd on 2 February, 2008

19. Although the actual damages cannot be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of the case, yet the sale of their products by Defendant under the identical trademark of Plaintiff has definitely caused dent to their goodwill and reputation for which exemplary and punitive damages can be awarded. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Aktiebolaget Volvo Vs A K Bhuva, 2006 (32) PTC 682 (Delhi), Hindustan Pencils Ltd Vs Aparna Enamel Industries, 131 (2006) DLT 65; Castrol Ltd. Vs Manoj Duggal, 2007 (1) R.A.J 570 (Delhi); Lachhman Dass Bihari Lal Vs Ghanshyam Das Jethanand, 2007 (35) PTC 693 (Delhi) and Microsoft Corporation Vs K Mayuri, 143 (2007) DLT 16 .
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1