Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (2.09 seconds)
Documents citing Hindustan Pencils Private Limited And ... vs M/S. Universal Trading Company on 31 October, 2000

Sakthi Kulangara Match Workers ... vs Arason Match Industries on 25 July, 2006

10. Respondent by making statement as required under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Act and obtaining necessary certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks have fulfilled the relevant statutory duty cast upon them in that regard. Provisions under Rule 16 (3) of the Copyright Rules, 1958 are of mandatory nature and require literal compliance. The argument of learned Counsel for respondent that an infringer is not entitled to the benefit of Rule 16 (3) necessarily implies that he is to be deemed to be a person not interested in the subject-matter in matter of that rule. An opponent is necessarily a person interested in the matter in an adversial system of dispensation of justice. This Board has repeatedly emphasized the mandatory requirement of Rule 16(3) of the Copyright Rules, 1958 See Kwality Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd v. India Hobby Centre (P) Ltd. 1993 PTC 29 and Hindustan Pencil Private Ltd. v. Universal Trading Company 1999 PTC (19) 379. Respondent has intentionally not given the requisite notice under Rule 16(3) to the petitioner and has accordingly further made wrong submissions in his application for registration under paras 2, 5 and 6.
Copyright Board Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tarun Chandra Roy vs Jitubhai Patel And Anr. on 21 April, 2004

5. He has relied on the decisions in Anglo-Dutch Paint, Colour & Varnish Works Pvt. Ltd. v. India Trading House, ; Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co., ; Smt. Vinnay Chawla v. Chandamama Toytronix Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1992 Del 234; N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, 1996 PTC 476 (Del); Jai Prakash Gupta v. Vishal Aluminium Mfg. Co., 1996 PTC 575 (Del); Induss Food Products Equipments Ltd. v. Rani Sati Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd., 1997 PTC 45 (Del); Hindustan Pencil Private Ltd. v. Universal Trading Company, 1999 PTC 379 (Del); Rotomac Pens Ltd. v. Milap Chand & Co., 1999 PTC 757 (Cal); Laxmikant v. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and Anr., 2002 PTC 1 (SC); Asian Paints (I) Ltd. v. Jaikishan Paints & Allied Products, 2002 PTC 735 (Bom).
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J K Biswas - Full Document

Geepee Ceval Proteins And Investment ... vs Saroj Oil Industry on 29 May, 2003

5. Counsel for plaintiff has distinguished the case law cited by the defendant that the geographical names are not entitled to be registered as trade mark. It was contended that The Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors., AIR 1997 Calcutta 413; R.S.K.V. Raghavan Trading as R.S. Krishna & Co. v. G.R. Gopal & Co. and Ors., ; Surya Agro Oils Ltd. v. Surya Coconut Oil Industries Ltd., ; Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Universal Trading Co., 2000 PTC 561 related to the registration of trademark whereas the present suit is filed for passing off; as such those cases are distinguishable. It was also contended that even the word "SURYA" and "SUN" have been protected by this Court in various judgments. Accordingly, it is submitted that the first objection of the defendant has no merit.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 9 - M A Khan - Full Document

Standard Electricals Limited vs Rocket Electricals And Anr. on 12 December, 2003

26. Learned counsel for the defendant argued that there is delay of about ten years, rather more than 20 years for the plaintiff in bringing up passing off action against infringement of trade mark. It is submitted that the defendant was marketing its products under the trade mark MAX STANDARD since 1979 and under the trade mark MS STANDARD since 1992. The advertisement in newspapers, trade journals, magazines and other filed and visual media were being published of the trade mark of the products and the trade mark of both the parties simultaneously. Attention has been drawn to a number of documents, which have been placed on record in this connection. It is argued that there is inordinate delay in filing of the present action by the plaintiff, which disentitles it from injuncting the defendant from using the trade marks MS STANDARD in relation to its goods. He has referred to B.L. and Co. and Ors. v. Pfizer Products Incl., 2001 PTC 797 (Del) (DB); Bravingtons Ltd. v. Barrington Tennant, 1987 RPC 183; Jolen Inc v. Shoban Lal Jain and Ors., 2001 PTC 216 (Madras); Swaran Singh Trading as Appliances Emporium v. Usha Industries (India) New Delhi and Anr., ; Shri Gopal Engg. & Chemical Works v. POMX Laboratory, AIR 1992 Delhi 302; Gopal Hossiery v. The Dy. Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors., ; Hindustan Pencils Private Limited and Anr. v. Universal Trading Company, 2000 PTC 561 (DB); The Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Vijay Pharmaceuticals, 1985 PTC 80; Synthetic Moulders v. Samperit Aktiergeselshaf, 1980 RLR 263; Century Electronics Limited v. C.V.S. Enterprises Limited, 1983 FSR 1; Paresh Chandra Saha v. Prakash Chandra Das and Anr., 2000 PTC 269 (DB); The Proctor and Gamble Co. v. Satish Patel, 1996 PTC (16) 646; Paras Traders v. Rajasthan Copy Manufacturers Association (Regd.), 1996 PTC (16) 229 where on account of delay for few months to 12-13 years, injunction was refused. But a perusal of these judgments will disclose that delay alone was not the reason in these cases to refuse ad interim injunction.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 6 - M A Khan - Full Document

Ansul Industries vs Shiva Tobacco Company on 16 January, 2007

In the case of Hindustan Pencils Private Limited and Ors. v. Universal Trading Co. 2000 PTC (20) 561(Del) (DB), a Division Bench of this Court noticed that both the parties had been using the same mark for nearly 20-26 years and it was held that the goods belonging to the two parties did not belong to the same category and, therefore, there was no question of deception or confusion. The registration of mark in favor of one party, did not apply to the goods manufactured and sold by the other party. The Court also came to the conclusion that there was honest concurrent user covered by Section 12(3) of the Act. Another ground that persuaded the Court to dismiss the appeal was that an application for registration of trade mark was moved by the defendant therein, to which opposition was filed but the same was abandoned by the plaintiff. The business of the defendant thereafter had expanded and prospered and, therefore, he would have suffered serious prejudice and hardship in case interim injunction was granted.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 27 - S Khanna - Full Document

Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr vs Goenka Institute Of Education & ... on 24 February, 2009

The decision in Hindustan Pencils Ltd's case (supra) is entirely on different facts. In fact, it was a case of removal of the trade mark and the court has given the benefit of user under special circumstances. The defendant on the date of decision of the appeal was the registered proprietor of the trade mark which was being used on the date of decision of the appeal for more than 26 years. In view of above, the decisions referred by the defendant has no direct application in the CS (OS) No.2579/2008 Page 26 of 39 facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned senior counsel for the defendant has argued that registrations obtained by the plaintiffs contain various contradictory statements about the user of the mark, therefore, in view of the statements made by the plaintiffs in the Trade Marks Office, the user from the year 1994 should not be considered. Since the plaintiffs have filed their evidence, which clearly indicates that the name of the plaintiffs is being used from the year 1994, no one can deny the said advertisement published in the well known newspaper like Hindustan Times, New Delhi Edition dated 15.09.1994, which is available at Page-132 of the documents filed by the plaintiffs. Similar advertisements have been published from time to time under the name G. D. Goenka Public School and their activities from time to time.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - M Singh - Full Document

M/S. Amar Singh Chawal Wala vs M/S. Shree Vardhman Rice & Genl. Mills on 29 May, 2009

13. On behalf of the Plaintiff it was contended that the Defendants had FAO (OS) No. 138 of 1996 Page 8 of 25 actually failed to indicate how they came across the words „HARA QILLA‟ and the device of QILLA if indeed Defendant No.1 was in the trade of marketing rice since 7th December 1978. It is pointed out that Defendant No.1 made an application for registration of its mark and device only in 1989. It was therefore submitted that the use of the mark HARA QILLA and the device QILLA cannot be said to be an honest. It is further submitted that the use cannot also be said to be concurrent since no bills or invoices had been produced by the Defendants to show that they were using the marks since 1978. It was submitted that the mere fact that this appeal had been pending for over 12 years should not be a reason ground to reject the prayer of the Plaintiff for an interim injunction since the impugned order was constituting a precedent for others to infringe the registered marks and device of the Plaintiff with impunity. It was contended that the continuous infringement of the registered marks of the Plaintiff by the Defendants was justification for persisting with the plea of interim injunction despite the fact that the present appeal was pending for a long time. In any event the main suit was also pending and was unlikely to conclude at an early date. Reliance was placed on the observations of this Court in Hindustan Pencils Private Limited v. FAO (OS) No. 138 of 1996 Page 9 of 25 Universal Trading Company 2000 PTC 561 (DB). Reliance was placed on a number of decisions which will be discussed hereafter.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 22 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 Next