Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.02 seconds)
Documents citing Skol Breweries Ltd vs Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd on 10 October, 2014

Vintage Distillers Limited vs Ramesh Chand Parekh on 16 November, 2022

and SKOL Breweries Ltd. v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., 2012 (49) PTC 231 (Bom.). The facts of the present case, according to this Court, completely fit into the jacket of the observations of the Bombay High Court, as in the present case, the only alteration or variation in the registered label of the Plaintiff is on account of the regulatory regime under the Excise law, relating to sale of country liquor and Plaintiff cannot escape mandatory compliances required by law.
Delhi High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Gloster Cables Limited vs Fort Gloster Cables Limited on 25 January, 2024

In support of his contention that the right title and interest in the registered trademark, assigned to the Appellant on 12.07.2008 was created, reference has been made to the decisions rendered in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Cipla Ltd., MANU/DE/1527/2008, Skol Breweries Ltd. Vs. Som Distilleries and Breweries ltd. & Ors. MANU/MH/1194/2009 and Cinni Foundations Vs. Rajkumar Shah & Sons & Anr. ILR (2010) 1 Delhi 754. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has committed an error in dismissing the application on the ground that the registration of the trademark in the name of the Appellant was invalid as it was in violation of Section 14 of the Code. It is observed that the CIRP was initiated on 09.08.2018 and the moratorium was imposed whereas the application for registration was submitted on 15.09.2018 on the basis ofthe deed of assignment dated 20.09.2017. In this regard, it is submitted by Counsel for the Appellant that the assignment of the trademark took place on 15.07.2008 with the supplemental trademark agreement as it is permissible under Section 37 and 38 of the Act, 1999 whereas the registration of the trademark was a procedural formality in view of Section 45 of the Act, 1999. It is further submitted that though it has Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 1343 of 2019 11 been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority that the RP did not form any opinion that the Corporate Debtor has given any preference transaction during the relevant period to invoke Section 43 of the Code and that there has been no examination/determination by the RP that the transaction in question was undervalued during the relevant period to invoke Section 45 of the Code. Admittedly, no application was filed by the RP under Section 43, 44, 45 and 46 but it has been held by the Adjudicating Authority that the procedural compliance is directory and the Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to pass suo motu order in respect of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has further held that the Appellant has sought the declaration about the trademark on the strength of the deed which were found executed within the period of two years preceding commencement of CIRP. It has referred to the deed of assignment dated 20.09.2017 because it is within the period of two years reckoned backward from 09.08.2018 when the CIRP was initiated. Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech limited Vs. Axis Bank Limited, 2020 SCC Online SC 237.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gloster Cables Limited vs Fort Gloster Cables Limited on 25 January, 2024

In support of his contention that the right title and interest in the registered trademark, assigned to the Appellant on 12.07.2008 was created, reference has been made to the decisions rendered in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Cipla Ltd., MANU/DE/1527/2008, Skol Breweries Ltd. Vs. Som Distilleries and Breweries ltd. & Ors. MANU/MH/1194/2009 and Cinni Foundations Vs. Rajkumar Shah & Sons & Anr. ILR (2010) 1 Delhi 754. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has committed an error in dismissing the application on the ground that the registration of the trademark in the name of the Appellant was invalid as it was in violation of Section 14 of the Code. It is observed that the CIRP was initiated on 09.08.2018 and the moratorium was imposed whereas the application for registration was submitted on 15.09.2018 on the basis ofthe deed of assignment dated 20.09.2017. In this regard, it is submitted by Counsel for the Appellant that the assignment of the trademark took place on 15.07.2008 with the supplemental trademark agreement as it is permissible under Section 37 and 38 of the Act, 1999 whereas the registration of the trademark was a procedural formality in view of Section 45 of the Act, 1999. It is further submitted that though it has Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 1343 of 2019 11 been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority that the RP did not form any opinion that the Corporate Debtor has given any preference transaction during the relevant period to invoke Section 43 of the Code and that there has been no examination/determination by the RP that the transaction in question was undervalued during the relevant period to invoke Section 45 of the Code. Admittedly, no application was filed by the RP under Section 43, 44, 45 and 46 but it has been held by the Adjudicating Authority that the procedural compliance is directory and the Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to pass suo motu order in respect of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has further held that the Appellant has sought the declaration about the trademark on the strength of the deed which were found executed within the period of two years preceding commencement of CIRP. It has referred to the deed of assignment dated 20.09.2017 because it is within the period of two years reckoned backward from 09.08.2018 when the CIRP was initiated. Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech limited Vs. Axis Bank Limited, 2020 SCC Online SC 237.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1