Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. vs The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. on 16 March, 1951

Kalyanpuri Flour Mills Private Limited vs Jugal Kishore Harbanslal on 13 March, 2002

In James Chadwick Brothers v. National Sewing Thread Co., AIR 1951 Bom 147, it was held by the Division Bench that it is important to find out the distinguishing or essential feature of the trade mark already registered and what is the main feature or the main idea underlying the trade mark and ascertain if the trade mark whose registration is sought contains the same distinguishing or essential feature or conveys the same idea. The question to be asked what would be the salient feature of the mark which in future would lead the purchaser to associate particular goods with that trade mark. Applying this test there is no doubt that the Applicants' trade mark will be identified as ELEPHANT and their goods will be referred to or called for under the name of ELEPHANT BRAND and ELEPHANT BRAND only. I hold that the Applicant's trade mark is deceptively similar to the Opponent's registered trade marks and as such Section 12(1) constitutes a bar to the registration of the Applicants' mark in this case.
Trademark Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anheuser Busch Inbev India ... vs Jagpin Breweries Ltd. on 8 December, 2025

Ltd. v. The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. Applying the principles laid down in these decisions, on an examination of the rival marks, i.e., the Plaintiff's label mark and the impugned mark, the Defendant has used "5001" in a manner that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark. G) Furthermore, the circumstances also strongly suggest that the Defendant's adoption of "5001" is dishonest. The Defendant has not provided any explanation for selecting the numeral "5001", nor has it shown any independent reputation or market presence since 2007, as alleged.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Breweries Limited And Anr. vs Balbir And Son (Agencies) And Anr. on 27 October, 2004

He has chosen to ignore the very important two words 'BLACK LABEL' which to the consumers of these products have a very significant meaning. The purchaser of an average intelligence will hardly put emphasis upon the words 'BALBI' and 'KALYANI' while going for the purchase of the products in this area. The Courts have emphasised that what is important to point is the distinguishing or essential feature of the trade mark already registered and what is the main feature or the main idea underlying the trade mark and if it if found that the trade mark whose registration is sought contains the same distinguishing or essential features or conveys the same idea, then, ordinarily the Registrar would be right if he came to the conclusion that the trade mark should not be registered (per Chagla C.J. in James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. v. National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., AIR 1951 Bom 147, De Cordova v. Vick Chemical Co., (1951) 68 RPC 103 (SC) it is wrong to suggest that the word 'BLACK LABEL" has attained the status of public juris in India. Learned counsel for the appellant mentioned that Johny Walker Black Label is not a registered trade mark in India. Product is not freely available in the market, except for its restricted sale at customs duty free shops at airports. Registration as an honest and concurrent user is to be allowed only in those cases where there have been honest concurrent use over a long period. In the instant case the user claimed by the respondent is only since 1984 which cannot be claimed to be a user sufficient enough entitling for the benefit of honest concurrent user. There is every likelihood of impugned mark being confused and causing deception for the registered trade mark 'KALYANI BLACK LABEL'. Concentration of sales in a particular region of the country and the sales being spares in certain regions of the country of a product having a mark already on the register is not a good ground for allowing registration to a new mark which otherwise does not meet the requirements of Sections 11(a) and 12(1) of the Act. Consequently, we hold that the impugned mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion in terms of Section 11(a) of the Act and is also disentitled under Section 12(1) of the Act since it pertains to the same description of goods and is deceptively similar to the mark of the appellant. Accordingly, for these reasons the impugned Order of the Deputy Registrar dated 30.9.93 is set aside and the appeal is allowed with no Order as to costs.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chatur Mohan And Ors. vs Ram Behari Dixit on 29 April, 1963

Similar was the decision in James Chadwick and Bros Ltd v. National Sewing Thread Co Ltd., AIR 1951 Bom 147 where it was observed that where a statute directs that an appeal shall lit to a Court already established the appeal must be regulated by the practice and procedure of the court When a Deputy Commissioner exercises jurisdiction conferred upon him under Section 13(3) of the U. P. and Berat Relief of Indebtedness Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Chairman, Budge Budge Municipality vs Mongru Mia And Ors. on 10 September, 1952

With the greatest respect to their Lordships, I am unable to agree that they took a right view. It has been dissented from by the Bombay High Court in the case of -- 'James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd. v. National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd.', (J), reported since judgment was reserved in the present case, but I do not think that the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court were correct in saying that Section 38(1) of the interpretation Act had been "completely overlooked", in the Calcutta case. At least one of the learned Judges, Das J., referred to the rule of construction embodied in Section 38(1), though he did not name the section (See P. 60, 2nd column, first paragraph of the report in the 5"! Calcutta Weekly Notes) and he also considered what the effect would be if for Section 108 of the Act of 1915, Section 223 of the Act of 1935 were substituted. As he was of opinion that even then, only rules framed for the exercise of jurisdictions existing at the date of the Act of 1935 would be included, he felt bound to hold that a jurisdiction conferred by an Act of 1940 could not have been assigned to the trial Judge by a rule framed under Section 223. The Bombay High Court did not agree that a jurisdiction conferred after the commencement of the Act of 1935 could not be a jurisdiction contemplated by Section 223, but it found it unnecessary to discuss that question, as Article 225 had since come into force in 1950 and since that Article preserved all jurisdictions of the High Court existing at the date of the Constitution, the jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act, conferred in 1940, could well be regarded as a jurisdiction vested by Article 225. If so and if Article 225 was now to be read for Section 108 in Clause 15 by virtue of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, which was identical with Section 3S(1) of the Interpretation Act, a judgment in an appeal under the Trade Marks Act would be a judgment pursuant to Article 225 and therefore appealable under Clause 15.
Calcutta High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. vs Hind Cycles Limited on 28 April, 1972

(19) In James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. v. The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd; , Chagia Cj and Bhagwati; referring to the words "likely to deceive or cause confusion" in section 10 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, observed at page 152 as follows :- "NOWin deciding whether a particular trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion, it is not sufficient merely to compare it with the trade mark which is already registered and whose proprietor is offering opposition to the registration of the former trade mark. What is important is to find out what is the distinguishing or essential feature of the trade mark already registered and what is the main feature or the main idea underlying that trade mark, and if it is found that the trade mark whose registration is sought contains the same distinguishing or essential feature or conveys the same idea, then ordinarily the Registrar would be right if he came to the conclusion that the trade mark should not be registered. The real question is as to how a purchaser, who must be looked upon as an average man of ordinary intelligence, would react to a particular trade mark, what association he would form by looking at the trade mark, and in what respect he would connect the trade mark with the goods which he would be purchasing. It is impossible to accept that a man looking at a trade mark would take in every single feature of the trade mark. The question would be, what would he normally retain in his mind after looking at the trade mark? What would be the salient feature of the trade mark which in future would lead him to associate the particular goods with that trade mark?"
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Madan Mohan Lal Garg vs Brijmohanlal Garg on 2 May, 1973

(13) For the reasons stated above, it is not right to style an appeal under sub-section (2) of section 109 of the Act as a first appeal against order or to style an appeal filed under sub-section (5) of section 109 of the Act as a second appeal against order which seems to be the practice adopted in this Court. The appeal under sub-section (2) of section 109 of the Act should be styled as a Miscellaneous Petition (Main) and an appeal under sub-section (5) of section 109 of the Act should be styled as an Original Civil Jurisdiction appeal as seems to be the practice adopted in the Bombay High Court as appearing from lames Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. v. The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. .
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

W.A. Tyzack & Co. Ltd. vs Kanayalal Khandewala And Anr. on 8 October, 1971

(4) Before answering this question, it is desirable to keep in mind the principles which govern such cases. These principles are enunciated by Chagia C.J. in James Chadwich & Bros. Ltd. v. The National Sewing Thread Co.. Ltd. and by Lord Johnston in Price's Patent Candle Company Ltd. v. Ogsion and Tennant Ltd. (26 Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases, 797).(2) Chagia C.J. speaking for the court, had explained these tests in the following words :- "LOOKINGat the scheme of these two sections, it seems to be clear that section 10 has undoubtedly a restricted operation. It deals with a case where the trade mark sought to be registered is identical with the trade mark of another proprietor or where there is a close resemblance between those two trade marks. So that under S. 10 what the Registrar has got to do is to compare the trade mark of the person applying for registration with the trade mark already registered by him, and if he finds that there is an identity between the two or there is a close resemblance such as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion, then he must refuse registration. When we turn to S. 8, it is wider in its operation. In the first place, if there is a trade mark which is likely to deceive or cause confusion, it must be refused notwithstanding the fact that there is identity with another trade mark nor is there any close resemblance with another trade mark. The Registrar has to come to a conclusion independently of any comparison with any registered trade mark. Further, whereas S. 10 contemplates an opposition by a proprietor of a registered trade mark, opposition under S. 8 may come even from a person who is selling goods under a trade mark which is not registered. What the Registrar has to decide is merely whether looking to all the circumstances of the case, a particular trade mark is likely to deceive or to cause confusion. In this particular case the Registrar has come to the conclusion that the trade mark in question falls both under Ss. 8 and 10. According to him there is a close resemblance between the trade mark of the appellants & the trade mark of the respondents such as likely to deceive or cause confusion, & also it is his opinion that apart from any resemblance in itself the trade mark sought to be registered is one which is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The principles of law applicable to the facts of this case are well settled. The burden of proving that the trade mark which a person seeks to register is not likely to deceive or cause confusion is upon the applicant. It is for him to satisfy the Registrar that his trade mark does not fall within the prohibition of S. 8 and 10 and therefore it should be registered. The Registrar, in coming to the conclusion whether a trade mark should or should not be registered, exercises the discretion vested in him by statute & the Court in appeal should always be extremely loath to interfere with that discretion. The authorities clearly lay down that discretion should not be interfered with unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the Registrar in coming to the conclusion that he did was clearly wrong or patently in error. Now in deciding whether a particular trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion, it is not sufficient merely to compare it with the trade mark which is already registered & whose proprietor is offering opposition to the registration of the former trade mark. What is important is to find out what is the distinguishing or essential feature of the trade mark already registered & what is the main feature or the main idea underlying that trade mark, & if it is found that the trade mark whose registration is sought contains the same distinguishing or essential feature or conveys the same idea, then ordinarily the Registrar would be right if he came to the conclusion that the trade mark should not be registered. The real question is as to how a purchaser, who must be looked upon as an average man of ordinary intelligence, would re-act to a particular trade mark, what association he would form by looking at the trade mark, & in what respect he would connect the trade mark with the goods which he would be purchasing. It is impossible to accept that a man looking at a trade mark would take in every single feature of the trade mark. The question would be, what would he normally retain in his mind after looking at the trade mark? What would be the salient feature of the trade mark which in future would lead him to associate the particular goods with that trade mark?)"
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next