M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk ... on 26 July, 2018
(a) Eco Lean Research and Development A/S v. Intellectual
Property Appellate Board and The Asst. Registrar of Trade
Marks, Trade Mark Registry3:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.50 seconds)Documents citing
Eco Lean Research & Development A/S vs Intellectual Property Appellate Board on 30 June, 2011
Usv Limited vs M/S.Aurobindo Pharma Limited on 22 May, 2013
4 (iii). Eco Learn Research & Development A/S v. Intellectual
4/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(T) CMA (TM) No.32 of 2023
Property Appellate Board and another, reported in 2011 (4) CTC 689,
where a Division bench of this Court held that one of the tests to be applied
while considering the question of deceptive similarity is to take note of the
goods to which they are to be applied and nature and kind of customers,
who would likely buy the goods and while examining an application,
Sections 9 and 11 of the Act, the Registrar has to keep in mind that the
statute enjoins upon him a duty to safeguard the rights created under the Act
and to give effect to such rights.
Kohler Co vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 25 August, 2022
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the Examination
Report, eighteen marks had been cited against the appellant. Out of these
eighteen, ten cited marks had either been abandoned/ removed/not renewed,
while one of the cited marks was of the appellant itself. The remaining seven
marks which were cited against the appellant did not relate to the
goods/services of the appellant but related to different goods/services. He
submits that the learned Examiner of Trade Marks has not considered the
similarity of goods/services of the cited marks with that of the appellant.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in ECO Lean
Research & Development A/S v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board,
2011(5) R.A.J 483 (Mad), he submits that this was an important aspect to be
considered by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, and the same having not
been considered, this is a fit case where the impugned order dated
19.03.2019 and the 'Statement of Grounds of Decision' dated 10.04.2019 be
set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned Senior Examiner of
Trade Marks for a fresh consideration.
1