Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Krbl Limited vs Ramesh Bansal & Another on 27 August, 2009

Toni & Guy Products Ltd & Anr vs Shyam Sunder Nagpal on 22 November, 2013

11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand contends that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the relief of passing off and damages on an apprehension of threat of the defendant's proposed launch of his products under the mark TONI & GIRL as the action is a quia timet action. Reliance is placed on KRBL Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Bansal & Anr. 2009 (41) PTC 114 (Del); Mars Incorporated Vs. Kumar Krishna Mukherjee & Ors. 2003 (26) IA Nos. 17475/2012, 16394/2012, 17476/2012 & 13393/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2224/2012 Page 12 of 14 PTC 60 (DEL) and Simla Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sun Soap Industries & Ors. 2012 (51) PTC 570 (DEL). There is no bar of law for claiming damages in a suit for injunction. Rather the law permits joining of cause of action under Order II Rule 3 CPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - M Gupta - Full Document

South African Breweries International ... vs Mohan Goldwater Breweries Ltd. & Anr. on 31 October, 2011

In KRBL Limited vs. Ramesh Bansal & Anr. 2009 (41) PTC 114 (Del), the plaintiff was registered proprietor of the trademark/label "India Gate", which it was using for CS(OS) 1073/2002 Page 13 of 25 selling rice. The defendant applied for registration of the same mark in respect of salt. The right of the plaintiff to maintain a quia timet action was upheld by this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - V K Jain - Full Document

Shilpa Medicare Limited vs Bristol-Myers Squibb Company And Ors. on 30 July, 2015

11. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel for Bristol Myers, relied on the decision in M/s. Jawahar Engineering Co. and Ors. v. M/s. Jawahar Engineers Pvt. Ltd, (1983) PTC 207, when a Division Bench of this Court was of the view that when injunction is sought, it is not necessary that the threat should have become a reality before the injunction and that it can even be sought for a threat which is yet to materialize.(Para 10). Likewise, he relied on KRBL Limited v. Ramesh Bansal & Anr. 2009 (41) PTC 114 (Del), where the plaintiff was registered proprietor of the trademark/label „India FAO (OS) 96/2014 Page 8 Gate‟, which it was using for selling rice. The defendant applied for registration of the same mark in respect of salt. The right of the plaintiff to maintain a quia timet action was upheld by this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Mr. Karan Bhutani Trading As M/S Kmsp ... vs Mrs Rajeshwari Proprietor Of M/S Micah ... on 2 September, 2024

19. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that suit for injunction lies where the plaintiff has apprehension that use of a mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the trademark of plaintiff by the defendant is likely to have an association with the registered trademark. It is submitted that in reply to the cease and desist legal notice, the defendant has refused to cease and desist from using the mark of the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff vehemently contended that defendant has all intention to use the impugned trademark/label, on account of which, the plaintiff's proprietory rights are likely to be prejudicially affected. It is submitted that plaintiff has claimed the relief of injunction as a preventive action to ensure that no damage is caused to the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon authorities reported as KRBL Limited vs. Ramesh Bansal and Anr., 2009 SCC Online Del 2612; M/s Analco (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Navodya Exim Pvt. Ltd., 2014 SCC Online Delhi 338; Automatic Electric Ltd. vs. R. K. Dhawan and Anr., 1999 SCC Online Delhi 27; Century Traders vs. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co., F.A.O. (O.S) 46/1976; Shree Rajmoti Industries vs. Rajmoti Foods CS (Comm) 48/2021 Mr. Karan Bhutani vs. Mrs. Rajeshwari Page 13 of 21 SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR MALHOTRA Date: 2024.09.02 MALHOTRA 16:11:14 +05'30' Products, 2019 SCC Online Del.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krbl Limited vs Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors. on 15 January, 2025

"Reliance has also been placed on The Timken Company v Timken Services Private Ltd11 and KRBL Ltd v Ramesh Bansal and Anr.12 However, these two citations are of no use and avail to the Plaintiff as both the orders were passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing as the Court of first instance due to pecuniary jurisdiction and hence would not constitute a binding precedent on this Court."
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 Next