Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 54 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014

Grasim Industries Limited And Anr vs Saboo Tor Private Limited And 5 Other on 16 October, 2025

62. The decision of Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson (supra) casts a heavy burden to demonstrate the ex facie illegality in granting registration to the trade mark. The threshold to be met is not that of prima facie arguable case of invalidity but a higher threshold of ex facie illegality or fraud or which shocks the conscience of the Court. It needs to be noted that registration of the trademark confers statutory rights on the proprietor which should not be interfered with lightly. The registration of the mark in favour of Defendant No.1 gives protection to the Defendant No. 1 to use of the mark, which use can be interfered with by the Court at interlocutory stage in exceptional circumstances.
Bombay High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pidilite Industries Limited vs Poma-Ex Products And 15 Ors on 2 August, 2017

83. In my view, merely because the application of the plaintiff for rectification of the registration of the trademark of the defendant is pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, that cannot be a bar against this Court from deciding issue of infringement under Section 28 (1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and to render a prima facie finding on the issue of validity of the registration for a limited purpose for granting interim relief against the defendant. Such prima facie finding, however, rendered by the Court would not affect the outcome of the final conclusions, as may be drawn by such Intellectual Property Appellate Board in the said application filed by the plaintiff. The principle of law laid down by the by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lupin Ltd. Vs. Johnson & Johnson (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 5 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Good Life Industries vs J R J Foods Pvt Ltd on 22 December, 2022

"83. In my view, merely because the application of the plaintiff for rectification of the registration of the trademark of the defendant is pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, that cannot be a bar against this Court from deciding issue of infringement under Section 28 (1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and to render a prima facie finding on the issue of validity of the registration for a limited purpose for granting interim Page 20 of 53 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 04:38:50 IST 2022 C/AO/10/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/12/2022 relief against the defendant. Such prima facie finding, however, rendered by the Court would not affect the outcome of the final conclusions, as may be drawn by such Intellectual Property Appellate Board in the said application filed by the plaintiff. The principle of law laid down by the by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lupin Ltd. Vs. Johnson & Johnson (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Pidilite Industries Limited vs Riya Chemy on 11 November, 2022

63. Merely because the Defendant has registered its mark does not take away the power of this Court, even at interlocutory stage, to go behind the Defendant's registration and grant injuction if registration of the Defendant's marks is prima facie found ex facie illegal, fraudulent and shocks the conscience of the Court. This has been expressly held in the decision relied upon on behalf of the Plaintiff namely Lupin Vs. Johnson and Johnson (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Mangalam Organics Ltd vs N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd on 3 September, 2025

38. Though arguments were advanced on fraudulent registration, it is well settled that where plea of fraud is raised, it is necessary to set out the necessary particulars of fraud which are missing in the present case. It is not sufficient to reproduce the expression used in the decision of Lupin Ltd. vs. Johnson and Johnson (supra) without specific pleadings to demonstrate the fraud. In so far as the dishonest adoption is concerned, the argument is that the registration is made in Class 5 in respect of goods which do not fall in Class 5. Prima facie, the registration of the Defendant's mark "AIR KARPURE" under Class 5 is also in respect of room and car freshners and deodorizers, which is similar to the Plaintiff's registration for deodorizers and purifiers, air deodorizing preparations. If the classifications in Class 3 and 5 are seen, there is certain overlapping between the classification as some of the products can fall in either of the classifications. The Defendant is prima facie using the registered mark in relation to the goods in respect of which the mark is registered.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd vs Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private ... on 13 January, 2026

A. At the outset, there is no dispute that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word mark "SIYARAM", with registration dating back to 1986. The Plaintiff also admittedly holds multiple registrations incorporating the said "Siyaram", some of which date back to the year 1984. The Defendants have admittedly not impugned any of these registrations by way of rectification proceedings, nor have the Defendants so much as alleged that any of these registrations are ex facie illegal, fraudulent, or such as to shock the conscience of the Court. Thus, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson , a strong presumption of validity attaches to a registered trade mark. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the statutory protection conferred upon a registered proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next