Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 164 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing Exphar Sa & Anr vs Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. & Anr on 20 February, 2004

Amit Lalitkumar Aswani vs Sunil Chelani on 29 February, 2024

In Dhodha House [Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, (2006) 9 SCC 41] although Exphar Sa [Exphar Sa v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688] was not noticed, the distinction would be apparent from the following: (Dhodha House case [Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, (2006) 9 SCC 41] , SCC p. 56, paras 50-51) '50. In this case, the Delhi High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction in terms of the 1957 Act. The primary ground upon which the jurisdiction of the Original Side of the High Court was invoked was the violation of the 1958 Act, but in relation thereto, the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the 1957 Act could not be invoked.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited vs Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited on 27 August, 2014

The present case is clearly covered by the dicta of 14 (2006) 9 SCC 41: 2006 (32) PTC 1 (SC) ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2014 23:48:00 ::: KPPNair 20 NMSL 141/2014 the Supreme Court in the case of Exphar SA and another (supra) and hence the Defendant's contention that the joinder of Plaintiff No.1 is barred by law is untenable. Further, and in any event, such a contention cannot be countenanced in an application under order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Plaintiff No.1 is a person instituting the Suit and therefore the Defendant's contention that first Plaintiff's presence should be ignored and only the presence of Plaintiff No.2 should be considered is totally devoid of merit. In any event, Plaintiff No.2 also carries on business in Mumbai. It is categorically stated in paragraph 44 of the Plaint that Plaintiff No. 1 has its Registered Office in Mumbai and Plaintiff No.2 has its Corporate Office in Mumbai from where the Plaintiffs are carrying on business in Mumbai. As already held herein while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, this Court is required to proceed on the pleadings in the Plaint and not on any dispute raised by the Defendant as to the facts or averments made in the Plaint.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

M/S Harman Overseas And 3 Others vs Dongguan Tr Bearing Company Limited And ... on 4 August, 2017

38. In Appeal No.340 of 2015, the facts of the case have been already narrated in the earlier part of the judgment. The opposition of the Defendants to the Petition seeking a leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent is on the ground that the first Plaintiff was owner of the ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:41:33 ::: sng 32 appeal-340,95n387.15 registered trademark which carries on business outside the jurisdiction of this Court. There is nothing placed on record to establish that the first Plaintiff has authorized the second Plaintiff to use its trademark. The contention was that under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, it was not enough to prove that the second Plaintiff was a distributor of the goods marketed by the first Plaintiff in India. It was contended that merely because the distributor was having its office within the jurisdiction of this Court, it cannot be said that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain an infringement action. It was pointed out that the preliminary issue of jurisdiction has been already framed. The learned Single Judge observed that for the purposes of application for grant of leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, the Court will have to proceed on the footing that the second Plaintiff was a distributor and agent of the first Plaintiff. The learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited which in turn relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Exphar Sa Vs. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - A Oka - Full Document

M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd vs R.K. Distilleries Pvt Ltd on 27 July, 2016

20. Similarly, in Exphar SA and Anr. (supra), it is noted that the jurisdiction of this Court was sought to be attracted on the basis that; (a) Copyright of the plaintiffs in the Maloxine Carton was being infringed by the respondents; (b) the plaintiff‟s carry on business in Delhi and one of them has registered office in New Delhi. It was also stated that the defendants carry on business for profit in Delhi within the jurisdiction of the High Court. On facts, the case is distinguishable. In the case in hand, on a perusal of the jurisdiction para, as noted above, it is seen that, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has infringed the copyright/label of the plaintiff nor it has been averred that the trademark has been infringed/passed off by the defendant, as the goods of the plaintiff in Delhi. In the absence of such averments, this Court would not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit which has been filed for infringement/passing off of trademark/label.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 13 - V K Rao - Full Document

Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs Neelkanth Realty Private Limited on 15 September, 2025

In Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 688] (SCC para 9) it was ruled that where an objection to the jurisdiction is raised by way of demurrer and not at the trial, the objection must proceed on the basis that the facts as pleaded by the initiator of the impugned proceedings are true. The submission in order to succeed must show that granted those facts the court does not have jurisdiction as a matter of law. In this case the decision of the High Court on the point of the jurisdiction was set aside as the High Court had Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 26660-26662 of 2025 Page 81 of 133 examined the written statement filed by the respondents in which it was claimed that the goods were not at all sold within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and also that Respondent 2 did not carry out business within the jurisdiction of the said High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sap Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. vs M/S. Varehouse Infotech on 19 November, 2009

21. As regards the order referred by the learned counsel for defendant passed in Suit No.29/2009, with great respect, this court is unable to agree with the finding of the said order in view of the settled law by the Apex Court in Exphar S.A. (supra) which has not been considered in the said order and this court is bound by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court as the observations made in the order are contrary to the decision made by the Apex Court in Suit No.29/2009.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

Blueberry Books & Ors. vs Google India Pvt. Ltd. on 28 November, 2013

32. In the present case, however, the website Amazon.com makes it clear that the facility is only available to the viewers in US and not elsewhere. The agreement with Defendant No.11 also specifies this. The affidavit of Mr. Bakshi also makes it clear that there were 33 downloads for a revenue of approximately USD 24.75 and that the downloads took place in the US and not in India. In other words, there is nothing to show that using the website of Amazon.com any transaction constituting infringement of the copyright of the Plaintiffs was concluded in India. The decisions in Dodha House v. S.K. Maingi and Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., do not support the case of the Plaintiffs that Section 62(2) CA would enable the CS (OS) No. 676 of 2012 Page 16 of 22 Plaintiffs to bring a suit against a foreign Defendant notwithstanding the fact that no part of the cause of action arose within the territory of the forum Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next