Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Cinni Foundation vs M/S Raj Kumar Sah & Sons & Another on 11 September, 2009

Naseer Ahmed vs Liberty Footwear Company on 4 December, 2012

129. The plaintiff has armored his arguments with a catena of case law. The case of Cinni Foundation vs. Raj Kumar Sah & Sons & Anr. 2009 (41) PTC 320 (DEL) has been relied upon to cite that the acquisition of title in trade mark is by virtue of assignment deed and not dependant upon assignment being registered as registration of as­ signment is only to place on record the fact that title has been created; registration by itself does not create title which already stands created on execution of assignment; assignee immediately on assignment, i.e., by writing acquires rights; it is the act of parties which vests the title and not the registration thereof. In M/s Modi Threads Limited vs. M/s Som Soot Gola Factory and Anr. AIR 1992 DELHI 4 it has been held that during pendency of assignment recordial proceedings, assignee can sue for infringement/passing off.
Delhi District Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amalesh Mondal vs Ratna Mondal & Ors on 21 June, 2019

In support of his contention Mr. Kar relies upon a decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Cinni Foundation Vs. Raj Kumar Sah & Sons & Anr., reported in 2009 (41)PTC 320(Del.). It is held in the said report that acquisition of title to the trade mark is not dependent upon the assignment being registered. Registration is only to place on record of the fact that the title has been created, but registration by itself does not create any title which already stands created on the execution of the assignment deed.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Cinni Foundation (Trust0 vs Mahendra Pal Singh And Anr. on 21 September, 2023

2. The rectification petition avers that the word mark CINNI stood registered in favour of M/s. Raj Kumar Sah & Sons w.e.f. 18 November 1964 in Class 7 in respect of machine and machine tools, Signature Not Verified motors (except for vehicle large size agricultural implements). The Digitally Signed By:HARIOM C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 77/2021 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:22.09.2023 17:15:18 mark was subsequently assigned on 5 November 2000 to M/s. CINNI Foundation, i.e. the present petitioner. CINNI Foundation, a Trust, which was at that time, managed by Mr. Chandra Kumar Sah, as its trustee (Though the petition, apparently, inadvertently refers to Mr. Chandra Kumar Sah as the Chairman of CINNI Foundation at that time). Consequent on removal of Mr. Chandra Kumar Sah, as the Managing Trustee of the petitioner, this Court has, according to Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vide its orders dated 1 March 2013 and 5 April 2013, in CS(OS) 783/2009 (CINNI Foundation v. Raj Kumar Sah and Anr.), noted that the interest of the petitioner foundation was being protected by the present petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

M/S. Micro Hitech Industries vs M/S. Uttam Gautam Appliances on 31 January, 2017

In this connection the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on 14 O.S.No.2835/2015 the decision of Cinni Foundation Vs. Raj Kumar Sah in 2009(41) PTC 320 (Del). It is further stated that Defendant has deliberately adopted the mark NANDI and label which are deceptively similar and identical with plaintiff's mark NANDI but has claimed its registered trade mark NANDINI DIAMOND with a diamond symbol on its usage from 21.3.2014. Reliance is also placed on the evidence of DW1 about the admissions of manufacturing and selling of pressure cookers and other home appliances. It is further stated that the defense taken by the defendant in his written statement and his evidence is contrary to the nature and according to the plaintiff bare reading of evidence of DW1 reveals so many inconsistencies. It is further stated that defendant has mislead the court stating that he is carrying on business since March 2014 but the document establishes that he is in the business since 2013. It is further stated that the mark NANDINI adopted by the defendant with suffix Diamond are not original work of the defendant and the same has been copied by him from the existing two well established marks. Much reliance is also placed on the cross examination directed to DW1 about his evidence at page 4 para 4 wherein DW1 has admitted about the change of logo as appearing in MO.2 to M.O.3 as per the advice of his advocate. Therefore according to the plaintiff 15 O.S.No.2835/2015 there is a clear infringement of its registered trade mark / label NANDI on the part of the defendant.
Bangalore District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1