Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.85 seconds)
Documents citing Metso Outotec Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 6 October, 2021

X Development Llc vs The Registrar Of Trademarks on 21 June, 2024

9. This Court has already had occasion to consider the validity of orders such as these, which are passed in an unreasoned manner. Mr. Rajasekhar draws my attention to the order dated 6 October 2021 in Metso Outotec Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the order dated 5 December 2022 in Taramis Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and the order dated 14 June 2023 in I Am The Ocean LLC v. Registrar of Trade Marks. The reasoning in these orders squarely apply here. Suffice to say that the impugned order can, in no view of the matter, be stated to be a reasoned order. The 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2024 01:23:52 ::: 35-COMMP-1304-2022.doc finding that the subject mark is not being capable of registration should have been supported by cogent reasons rather than a mere reproduction of the section which alleges that the subject mark falls foul of.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Mineral Earth Sciences Llc vs X Development Llc on 21 June, 2024

9. This Court has already had occasion to consider the validity of orders such as these, which are passed in an unreasoned manner. Mr. Rajasekhar draws my attention to the order dated 6 October 2021 in Metso Outotec Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the order dated 5 December 2022 in Taramis Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and the order dated 14 June 2023 in I Am The Ocean LLC v. Registrar of Trade Marks. The reasoning in these orders squarely apply here. Suffice to say that the impugned order can, in no view of the matter, be stated to be a reasoned order. The 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2024 01:23:56 ::: 35-COMMP-1304-2022.doc finding that the subject mark is not being capable of registration should have been supported by cogent reasons rather than a mere reproduction of the section which alleges that the subject mark falls foul of.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

View Inc vs Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks And Anr on 24 February, 2022

Upon perusal of the order dated December 3, 2018 and the grounds provided thereafter by an order dated January 29, 2021, I am of the view that the orders passed are not speaking orders and have not properly dealt with the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed by Justice G.S. Patel in Commercial Appeal (L) 2 No.18137 of 2021 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.18138 of 2021 (Metso Outotec Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) to buttress his arguments.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document

Barclays Bank Plc vs Mr. Jeevan Kumar on 28 February, 2022

Upon perusal of the order dated January 15, 2019 and the grounds provided thereafter by an order dated November 2, 2020, I am of the view that the orders passed are not speaking orders and have not properly dealt with the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed by Justice G.S. Patel in Commercial Appeal (L) 2 No.18137 of 2021 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.18138 of 2021 (Metso Outotec Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) to buttress his arguments.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document

Technical Glass Products vs Ms. Manjusha Bobade on 1 March, 2022

Upon perusal of the order dated December 18, 2020 I am of the view that the order passed is a speaking order and has not properly dealt with the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed by Justice G.S. Patel in Commercial Appeal (L) 2 No.18137 of 2021 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.18138 of 2021 (Metso Outotec Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) to buttress his arguments.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document

Exide Industries Limited vs Mr. Debanjan Chakrabertty And Anr on 2 March, 2022

Upon perusal of the order dated February 24, 2018 and the grounds provided thereafter by an order dated April 19, 2021, I am of the view that the orders passed are not speaking orders and have not properly dealt with the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed by Justice G.S. Patel in Commercial Appeal (L) 2 No.18137 of 2021 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.18138 of 2021 (Metso Outotec Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) to buttress his arguments.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document

Exide Industries Limited vs Mr. Debanjan Chakrabertty And Anr on 3 March, 2022

Upon perusal of the order dated February 24, 2018 and the grounds provided thereafter by an order dated April 19, 2021, I am of the view that the order passed are not speaking orders and have not properly dealt with the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed by Justice G.S. Patel in Commercial Appeal 2 (L) No.18137 of 2021 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.18138 of 2021 (Metso Outotec Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) to buttress his arguments.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document

Barclays Bank Plc vs Mr. Jeevan Kumar on 10 March, 2022

Upon perusal of the order dated January 15, 2019 and the grounds provided thereafter by an order dated November 2, 2020, I am of the view that the orders passed are not speaking orders and have not properly dealt with the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed by Justice G.S. Patel in Commercial Appeal (L) No.18137 of 2021 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.18138 of 2021 2 (Metso Outotec Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) to buttress his arguments.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document
1