Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing A. Abdul Karim Sahib vs A. Shanmugha Mudaliar on 9 December, 1966

M/S.Minister White Clothing vs K.R.Nagarajan

18. Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Sundar, in Maya Appliances v. Urooj Ahmed Lords Enterprises (India), reported in 2017 (1) LW 417, had taken the view that a suit for passing off which is a common law remedy cannot be converted into a suit for infringement by incorporating a prayer for infringement on the basis of subsequent registration, which runs counter to the judgment of the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ramaprasada Rao, in A.Abdul Karim Sahib v. A.Shanmugha Mudaliar, reported in (1967) 80 LW 414. Judicial discipline requires me to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for resolution of the conflict.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Milaap Social Ventures India Pvt Ltd vs Google India Pvt Ltd on 23 November, 2022

24. The Madras High Court in the case of A. Abdul Karim Sahib vs. A. Shanmugha Mudaliar (supra) has held that though there are certain procedural differences in the suit seeking injunction against passing off and the statutory law relating to infringement of trademarks, however, the Madras High Court in the above cited judgment held that in substance and in effect, an action in passing off can easily be telescoped into an action for infringement and vice versa.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Itc Limited vs Maurya Hotel (Madra) Pvt Ltd on 22 July, 2021

27. I therefore do not think that the plaintiff should be driven to a separate suit for infringement based on the subsequent registration. As has been pointed out in A.Abdul Karim Sahib Vs. A.Shanmugha Mudaliar reported in Volume 80 LW Page 414, a Full Bench of this Court in Subramania Vs. Sundaram reported in AIR 1963 Madras 217 while dealing with the power of the Court to adjust the rights of the parties based on subsequent events has observed as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Sinhal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Royal Enterprises on 2 December, 1997

Action for infringement on the same principle lies when the trade mark is registered. That being so then to say that is in a different cause of action to maintain a suit for infringement when suit for passing off is still pending, is not correct. Even otherwise, if the amendment application is rejected, this will lead to multiplicity of proceedings between the parties, which should be avoided. I am in agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in A Abdul Karim Sahib Vs. A.Shanmugha Mudaliar's case (supra), which was followed by this Court in Anglo Dutch Colour & Varnishing Works Limited Vs.Indian Trading House's case (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas vs Thalapakattu Biriyani And Fast Food on 23 June, 2011

In A.Abdul Karim Sahib vs. A.Shanmugha Mudaliar {1967 (2) MLJ 468}, T.Ramaprasada Rao, J., as he then was, held that an action for passing off can easily be telescoped into an action for infringement and vice versa . Therefore, relying upon the said decision, it was contended by Mr.Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the defendant, that the appropriate course of action for the plaintiff was only to seek an amendment of the pleadings in the previous suit.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

M/S Sos Oil Seals Private Limited vs M/S Super Seals India Limited on 1 July, 2013

9. Mr. Pravin Anand, the learned counsel for the appellants, also placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in A. Abdul Karim Sahib v. A. Shanmugha Mudaliar (1967 MLJ 468). The Court observed that "the statute law relating to infringement of trade mark is based on the same fundamental principles as the general law relating to passing off. Though there may be some procedural differences between the two actions, in substance and in effect an action for passing off can easily be telescoped into an action for infringement of trade mark and vice versa. Hence a suit instituted for an injunction restraining the defendant from marketing certain goods under a mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark can be amended into one for infringement of trade mark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 if the I.A.Nos.14658/2008 & 9820/2008 in CS(OS) No.2232/2006 Page 3 of 14 plaintiff has obtained registration of his mark under the Act after the institution of the suit. Such an amendment will not change the cause of action and would only be in the nature of an alternative relief. In this judgment the Court also observed that by allowing the amendment multiplicity of suits are also avoided.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

Pravesh Narula Trading As M/S. Capital ... vs Raj Kumar Jain Trading As M/S. Bholaram ... on 29 October, 2024

8. Mr. Pravin Anand, the learned counsel for the appellants, also placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in A. Abdul Karim Sahib v. A. Shanmugha Mudaliar (1967 MLJ 468). The Court observed that "the statute law relating to infringement of trade mark is based on the same fundamental principles as the general law relating to passing off Though there may be some procedural differences between the two actions, in substance and in effect an action for passing off can easily be telescoped into an action for infringement of trade mark and vice 1 2022 SCC OnLine Del 306 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 379/2022 Page 6 of 16 By:AMAN UNIYAL Signing Date:29.10.2024 21:53:47 versa. Hence a suit instituted for an injunction restraining the defendant from marketing certain goods under a mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark can be amended into one for infringement of trademark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 if the plaintiff has obtained registration of his mark under the Act after the institution of the suit. Such an amendment will not change the cause of action and would only be in the nature of an alternative relief. In this judgment the Court also observed that by allowing the amendment multiplicity of suits are also avoided.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Usha International And Anr. vs Usha Television Limited on 19 March, 2002

9. Mr. Pravin Anand, the learned counsel for the appellants, also placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in A. Abdul Karim Sahib v. A. Shanmugha Mudaliar (1967 MLJ 468). The Court observed that "the statute law relating to infringement of trade mark is based on the same fundamental principles as the general law relating to passing off. Though there may be some procedural differences between the two actions, in substance and in effect an action for passing off can easily be telescoped into an action for infringement of trade mark and vice versa. Hence a suit instituted for an injunction restraining the defendant from marketing certain goods under a mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark can be amended into one for infringement of trade mark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 if the plaintiff has obtained registration of his mark under the Act after the institution of the suit. Such an amendment will not change the cause of action and would only be in the nature of an alternative relief. In this judgment the Court also observed that by allowing the amendment multiplicity of suits are also avoided.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 18 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 Next