Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Kanshiram Surinder Kumar vs Thakurdas Deomal Rohira on 4 March, 1976

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:45 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:42 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:41 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:43 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:44 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 15 February, 2023

37. Mr. Kirpekar also submitted that even if it is assumed that no limitation is prescribed for rectification application, still there is considerable delay in filing the rectification application. This Court in the decision dated 4th March 1976 in Kanshiram Surinder Kumar Vs. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira 44, relying on the decision in Ciba Ltd. Vs. Ramalingam (supra) held that the question of delay had, therefore, to be approached from the point of view of the substantial injury, if any, caused to the respondent thereby, which should "outweigh the interest of the public" which the Court has to consider. It has been further held that in considering an application for rectification, the Court has to consider not merely the conduct of the parties, but also the question of purity of the register in public interest.
Bombay High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M J Jamdar - Full Document

Bhagwandas G. Agrawal vs Brijwasi Dughdhalaya Private Limited ... on 25 July, 2002

11. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, then relied on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Khanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, reported in 1983 1PLR 4. In that case, the question that really fell for consideration was whether the respondent No. 1 had acquiesced in the user of the appellant's trade mark. The Division Bench answered the question in the negative, taking the view that in the interest of purity of register, there was no question of delay and acquiescence. In any case, this decision can be of no avail to the petitioner since the application for rectification was made to the Registrar. It is nobody's case that the Registrar is a Court governed by the Limitation Act, 1963.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company ... vs The Rajasthan Navsagar Manufacturers & ... on 19 September, 2001

Considering the tests and law as laid down by this Court, in my opinion, the Registrar, the 6th Respondent misdirected himself in exercising discretion in favour of the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 6 was bound by the law declared by this Court. Respondent No. 6 has failed to apply the tests which this Court has laid down. In these circumstances, the order dated 26th November, 1991 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 15 February, 2023

37. Mr. Kirpekar also submitted that even if it is assumed that no limitation is prescribed for rectification application, still there is considerable delay in filing the rectification application. This Court in the decision dated 4th March 1976 in Kanshiram Surinder Kumar Vs. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira 44, relying on the decision in Ciba Ltd. Vs. Ramalingam (supra) held that the question of delay had, therefore, to be approached from the point of view of the substantial injury, if any, caused to the respondent thereby, which should "outweigh the interest of the public" which the Court has to consider. It has been further held that in considering an application for rectification, the Court has to consider not merely the conduct of the parties, but also the question of purity of the register in public interest.
Bombay High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M J Jamdar - Full Document
1