Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing S.Oliver Bernd Freier Gmbh And Co. Kg. vs Karni Enterprises And Anr. on 31 October, 2006

Hindustan Lever Limited vs Mr. Lalit Wadhwa And Anr. on 10 August, 2007

The infringement of the Plaintiff's rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act has therefore, taken place in Delhi, assuming that the plaintiff has a valid patent and that the defendants product infringes the same. It is this infraction of the Plaintiff's rights which would give the Plaintiff the cause of action to sue the Defendants to prevent the infringement of its patent. Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and that this Court has the territorial Page 2339 jurisdiction by virtue of Section 20(c) CPC to entertain the present suit. The decisions of this Court in LG Corporation (Supra), Pfizer Products Inc. (Supra), S. Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Company KG (Supra), are on the same lines.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 12 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Microsoft Corporation vs Azure Knowledge Corporation Pvt. Ltd on 9 August, 2023

7.4. Large number of decisions have been tried to be tendered before the Court by way of list of decisions, but few are pressed into service more particularly, (i) In the case of Badat & Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co. reported in AIR 1964 SC 538 (paragraph 11); (ii) In the case of Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar reported in (2003) 8 SCC 673 (paragraphs 71, 73); (iii) In the case of Suzuki Motors v. Suzuki (India) Ltd., reported in (2019) SCC Online Delhi 9241 (paragraphs 42, 43, 44, 45 & 46) and (iv) In the case of S. Oliver Bernd Freeier Gmbh & Co. KG v. Karni Enterprises & Anr., reported in 2006 SCC Online Delhi 1317 (paragraphs 13 to Page 22 of 67 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:46:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9620/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023 undefined
Gujarat High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

M/S. Matrumal Dhannalal Oil Mill vs M/S. Abhishek Enterprises on 12 March, 2010

37. Similarly, in S. Oliver Bernd Freir Gmbh's case (supra), where trademark of the plaintiff was registered at Delhi, it was exporting goods from Delhi and defendant had applied for registration of their trademark on an all India basis for sale of goods all over India and there was no assertion from the side of the defendant that they did not intend to sell their goods in Delhi, it was held that High Court at Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the instant case, defendant has made a statement on oath that he has not applied for CS(OS) No. 643/2006 Page 24 of 27 registration of his trademark for supplying of goods at Delhi and all over India, except Haryana, UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - A Suresh - Full Document

Rana Steels vs Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. on 25 March, 2008

13. Mr. Bansal then referred to the jurisdictional argument which was raised by Mr. Sudhir Chandra. He drew my attention to paragraph 26 of the plaint where it is stated that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit inasmuch as the defendant's impugned acts of infringement and passing off are taking place in Delhi. It is also alleged that the defendant has intention to use the impugned trademark / label in Delhi, if not already used inasmuch as the defendant has filed the impugned application for registration, on an All India basis. It is also alleged that the defendant is otherwise soliciting trade and has distribution networks in Delhi in relation to the said trade mark / labels. In view of these averments, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that this Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this present suit. He submitted that the defense taken by the defendant in the written statement is not required to be gone into at this stage and as to whether the allegations contained in para 26 of the plaint are established or not can only be determined on evidence. He referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of S. Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH and Co. KG v. Karni Enterprises and Anr. 2006 (33) PTC 574 (Del) to submit that the defendants are functioning on an All India basis and the threat looms large in Delhi also. He also reiterated that in the counter statement to the opposition filed by the plaintiff referred to above, the defendant had itself stated that it is the leading manufacturer of building materials in India. Therefore, it was contended by Mr. Bansal that this Court has jurisdiction both in respect of the infringement action and in respect of the passing off action.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 18 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1