citedby: 292181

Medical Technologies Limited vs Neon Laboratories Limited on 3 April, 2012

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd.'s case, it is further evident that the common law principle that the proprietary rights acquired by use of marks and the first user of the mark is the proprietor will not hold water, particularly where the claim to the proprietorship of a mark is made by another trader by way of an application under the provisions of the Act for registration of the mark prior to the use of the mark by another trader.

Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - D D Sinha - Full Document

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

In Meghraj Biscuits Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise {2007 (3) SCC 780}, the appellant before the Supreme Court was selling biscuits under the brand name "Meghraj", which happened to the registered trademark of another Company. The Department of Central Excise contended that the appellant was not eligible to the benefit of SSI Notification. It was contended before the Department that the Registrar of Trademarks granted registration on 30.6.2000, with retrospective effect from 30.9.1991, the date of the application and that therefore differential duty cannot be claimed. This contention was raised on the strength of retrospective effect given to the Certificate of Registration under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. But the Supreme Court rejected the said contention, holding that the deeming fiction created under the Trade Mark Law was based upon the principle of deemed equivalence to public user of such mark and that the deeming fiction cannot be extended to the Excise Law. Therefore, it is clear that a deeming fiction cannot be extended to a purpose not specifically provided for under the Act itself.

Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Wockhardt Limited vs Eden Healthcare Pvt. Ltd on 28 January, 2014

25. Thus by virtue of the deemed equivalent public user of the mark as held by the Apex Court in Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. (supra) and by the Division Bench of this Court in Medical Technological Led. (supra) and by virtue of the provisions of Section 56 of the Act, the Suit for infringement will be maintainable even if the use of the mark is only for export purpose.

Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Shyam Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 13 January, 2017

1. Meghraj Vs. State of U.P., 2009(3) JIC 764 (Allahabad),

Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - V Lakshmi - Full Document

Swastik Appliances vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 May, 2015

In rebuttal, the learned counsel submitted that the decision in the case of Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as in the said judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has observed that there is no deed of assignment to M/s. Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. Similarly, the other judgments quoted by the by the AR are distinguishable due to the facts of the present case. It was also submitted that the show cause notices issued post April 2008, after the receipt of the Trade Mark Registration certificate by the appellant are on the ground that the name of the marketing firm on the carton amounts to brand-name and picture of Veena is appearing on the carton as well as on the mixer. The learned counsel further submitted that the brand-name belongs to the appellant and writing the name of the marketing firm/or printing Veena on carton/mixer grinder will not disentitle the benefit of SSI Notification. He relied upon the following case laws in support of his contention that merely because the goods are distributed by some other company whose name and logo are also printed on cartons of its specified goods, it cannot be said that they are identified with the user of the brand name and the SSI exemption cannot be denied on this ground.