Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.75 seconds)
Documents citing K.R. Chinnakrishna Setty And Ors. vs Sri Ambal And Co., Madras on 25 July, 1972

The Scotch Whisky Association vs Khoday India Limited on 7 October, 2009

The third decision is of the High Court of Mysore viz. K. R. Chinnakrishna Setty v. Ambal & Co. [(1973) A.I.R. Mys. 74]. This was also a trade mark action in which it was held that the decision given in the earlier proceedings between the same parties with regard to registration of the trade mark operated as res judicata in a proceeding under s. 105. The plaintiffs in the appeal before the Mysore High Court were Sri Ambal & Co., Madras, a registered firm carrying on business in manufacture and sale of snuff. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants under s. 105 of the said Act for an injunction restraining the defendants from using, exhibiting or advertising by themselves or through their servants or agents or others the offending ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:50 ::: 22 trade mark Sri Andal Snuff or Sri Andal Officers Snuff or any other colourable imitation of the plaintiffs registered trade mark Sri Andal Snuff: and from trading under the name and style of Sri Andal & Co. or any other name and style which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiffs trading style Sri Ambal & Co. Earlier defendants No.1 had filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Andal Marks for registration of their mark and the Assistant Registrar Sri had allowed the said application holding that the mark Sri Andal was not deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark Sri Ambal and therefore s. 12(l) of the said Act was not contravened. The objections of the plaintiffs in the notice of opposition to the application had been over-ruled by the Assistant Registrar. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Registrar, the plaintiffs had filed the appeal, which was allowed by a single Judge and the decision of the single Judge confirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal by a division Bench and subsequently by the Supreme Court. In the suit counsel for the defendants tried to urge the contentions which are indicated in para 6 of the report.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document

K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty vs K. Venkatesa Mudaliar And Anr. on 6 October, 1972

7. Against the said judgment C.M.A. 58 of 1966 was preferred to this court. Ganesan, J., allowed the appeal holding that by reason of the final decision of the Supreme Court it is no longer open to the applicant for registration to contend that his legend "Sri Andal" is not deceptively similar to the respondent's legend "Sri Ambal" and that the addition of the word 'Radha' to the respondent's legend "Sri Andal" would not make any material difference. The learned Judge further observed that the first respondent's trade mark "Radha's Sri Andal snuff" is deceptively similar to the appellant's trade mark "Sri Ambal snuff" and that it is not open to the first respondent while amending the design particularly after the adverse judgment of the High Court against them to retain the offending legend "Andal" as part of the new trade mark. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Assistant Registrar was set aside. The present appeal is filed against the said judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical Works ... vs Pharmaceutical Company Of India on 22 August, 1977

32. The third decision is of the High Court of Mysore viz. K.R. Chinnakrishna Setty v. Ambal & Co. [1973] A.I.R. Mys. 74. This was also a trade mark action in which it was held that the decision given in the earlier proceedings between the same parties with regard to registration of the trade mark operated as res judicata in a proceeding under Section 105. The plaintiffs in the appeal before the Mysore High Court were Sri Ambal & Co., Madras, a registered firm carrying on business in manufacture and sale of snuff. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants under Section 105 of the said Act for an injunction restraining the defendants from using, exhibiting or advertising by themselves or through their servants or agents or others the offending trade mark "Sri Andal Snuff" or "Sri Andal Officers' Snuff" or any other colourable imitation of the plaintiffs' registered trade mark "Sri Ambal Snuff" and from trading under the name and style of "Sri Andal & Co." or any other name and style which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiffs' trading style "Sri Ambal & Co." Earlier defendants No. 1 had filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of their mark "Sri Andal" and the Assistant Registrar had allowed the said application holding that the mark "Sri Andal" was not deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark "Sri Ambal" and therefore Section 12(1) of the said Act was not contravened. The objections of the plaintiffs in the notice of opposition to the application had been over-ruled by the Assistant Registrar. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Registrar, the plaintiffs had filed the appeal, which was allowed by a single Judge and the decision of the single Judge confirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal by a division Bench and subsequently by the Supreme Court. In the suit counsel for the defendants tried to urge the contentions which are indicated in para. 6 of the report. The Court held that the decision in the matter of the trade mark application and the plaintiffs' opposition would govern the rights of the parties in the suit also observing that "if a mark cannot be registered on the ground that it contravenes Section 12(1), then it follows that the user of the said mark will have to be restrained also in the suit filed under Section 105" (see para. 9 of the report).
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty Trading As ... vs K. Venkatesa Mudaliar And K. ... on 6 October, 1972

7. Before dealing with the contentions put forward in the appeal it is necessary to appreciate the observations of the Supreme Court in K.R. Chinnikrishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal and Company (1970) 1 S.C.J. 23 : (1970) 1 S.C.R. 290, in the case between the same parties relating to the registration of the appellant's trade mark " Sri Andal " Madras snuff and its opposition to registration by the respondents, who had previously registered their trade mark as " Sri Ambal" Parimala Snuff. The Supreme Court held that the essential feature of the appellant's trade mark was " Andal " while that of the respondents was " Ambal". Notwithstanding the fact that " Sri Andal " and Sri Ambal are separate divinities, Sri Andal was Vaishnavite woman saint of Srivilliputtur Village and was deified because of her union with Lord Ranganatha, while Sri "Ambal" is the consort of Siva or Maheswara. Their Lordships held that the resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye and that there is a close affinity of sound between the words " Ambal" and "Andal". In the result, they confirmed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which confirmed the decision of the Single Judge, Jagadeesan, J., setting aside the order of the Assistant Registrar directing registration. As referred to already, the appellant during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court filed his application No. 212575 seeking registration of the appellant's snuff as ''Radha's Sri Andal'' Madras Snuff. The attention of the Supreme Court was drawn to the above fact and the observations of the Division Bench in regard thereto, the Supreme Court refused to express any opinion whether the use of the expression "Radha's Sri Andal" would still amount to an infringement of the respondent's mark. Sri V. K. Thiruvenkatachari, Counsel for the appellant contends : (1) That there is no visual similarity between the appellant's and the respondents' marks; (2) That phonetically the appellant's mark "Radha's Sri Andal" Snuff has no connection with the respondents' "Ambal Snuff"; and (3) That the appellant's goods have been sold side by side with the respondents' goods and that there is no evidence of any confusion in the minds of the customers. In this connection, the learned Counsel referred to the following passage in Halsbury's laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 38, page 592:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Vishnudas Kishindas Zarda Factory vs The Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. on 11 October, 1990

In support of this, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Mysore High Court in K. P. Chinnakrishna Setty v. Ambal & Co. reported in A. I. R. 1973 Mysore page 74 and another judgment of the Bombay High Court in J. L. Mehta versus Registrar of Trade Marks . According to the learned counsel, the entry 'Manufactured Tobacco' cannot be split up subsequent registration for 'Cigarette' cannot be granted as done by the Registrar, which is contrary to the Fourth Schedule of the Rules. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the provisions of Sections 12(1) and 46(1) of the Act and in view of the fact that both "Cigarettes" and "Chewing Tabacco" answer the same description of goods viz, "Manufactured Tobacco" the Registrar should have refused to rectify the registration. In support of this, he placed reliance on In re. Gutta-parcha of Rubber Manufacturing Co.'s Applications (26 RFC 428). He also cited the following decisions in support of his contention :--Lever Bro.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Gera vs Anil Food Industries on 9 April, 2025

(125) PW1 had also admitted in his cross-examination that application no. 557320 in class 30 dated 28.08.1991 was filed by the defendant for trade mark CHATMOLA and that the same was registered and there is no other registration of trade mark CHATMOLA in class 30 other than registration no. 557320. He further could not state before the Court whether any opposition or appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the registration of the said trade mark CHATMOLA in favour of the defendant. Thus, admittedly no opposition or appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the registration of trade mark CHATMOLA with the device of baby elephant containing distinctive bubbles and therefore, the registration of trade mark CHATMOLA along with the device of baby elephant with distinctive bubbles had attained finality. It was held by the Hon'ble Mysore High Court in the case of K.R. Chinnakrishna Setty & Ors. vs. Sri Ambal & Co. Madras, AIR 1973 Mys 74 that decision of an Assistant TM 992/2016 & TM 924/2016 Page No. 72 of 106 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.09 17:22:25 +0530 Registrar on an application filed for registration of the mark will operate as res judicata in the proceeding under Section 105 of the Act in which the same question arises for consideration.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Avtar Singh vs M/S. K.M. Products And Another on 21 May, 1996

Ltd. and another , American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., and another , Chinnakrishna Sethy and others v. Sri Ambal and Co. (AIR 1973 Mysore 74), Chhattar Extractions Ltd. and another v. Kochar Oil Mills Ltd. (1995 PTC (15) DB 285), Amar Singh Chawl v. Rajdhani Rollar Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1990 PTC 220), and Kwality Ice Cream Ltd. v. India Hobby Centra Pvt. Ltd. (1990 (1) Arb. LR 70).
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Anil Kumar Gera vs Anil Food Industries on 9 April, 2025

(125) PW1 had also admitted in his cross-examination that application no. 557320 in class 30 dated 28.08.1991 was filed by the defendant for trade mark CHATMOLA and that the same was registered and there is no other registration of trade mark CHATMOLA in class 30 other than registration no. 557320. He further could not state before the Court whether any opposition or appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the registration of the said trade mark CHATMOLA in favour of the defendant. Thus, admittedly no opposition or appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the registration of trade mark CHATMOLA with the device of baby elephant containing distinctive bubbles and therefore, the registration of trade mark CHATMOLA along with the device of baby elephant with distinctive bubbles had attained finality. It was held by the Hon'ble Mysore High Court in the case of K.R. Chinnakrishna Setty & Ors. vs. Sri Ambal & Co. Madras, AIR 1973 Mys 74 that decision of an Assistant TM 992/2016 & TM 924/2016 Page No. 72 of 106 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.09 17:22:25 +0530 Registrar on an application filed for registration of the mark will operate as res judicata in the proceeding under Section 105 of the Act in which the same question arises for consideration.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avtar Singh vs K.M. Products And Anr. on 21 May, 1996

(12) Mr. Bansal learned Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions. Kavimj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, , Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engineering Co., , National Behll Co. & Anr. v. Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. and Am., , American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd and Another, , K.R. Chinnakrishna Sethy & Ors v. Sri Ambal and Co., Air 1973 Mysore 74, Chhattar Extractions Ltd. & Anr. v. Kochar Oil Mills Ltd., 1995 Ptc (15) DB) 285, Amar Singh Chawla v. Rajdhani Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Ptc 220 (Delhi) and Kwality Ice Crems Ltd. v. India Hobby Central Pvt. Ltd., 1990 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter 70.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document
1