Naseer Ahmed vs Liberty Footwear Company on 4 December, 2012
196. The case of N.R. Dongre and Ors vs. Whirlpool Corporation
and Others AIR 1995 DELHI 300 has been relied upon by the
defendant also.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 64 (1.81 seconds)Laverana Gmbh & Co Kg vs Mac Personal Care Pvt Ltd & Ors on 19 February, 2015
(iii) N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation AIR 1995 Delhi 300
(DB): 1996 (16) PTC (Del) to contend that from prima facie
evidence of advertisements in international publications and
sale of products bearing the Whirlpool trademark in various
geographical regions of the world and inspite of sales in India
limited to the US Embassy and the US Aid Office in Delhi,
injunction was issued in this case.
Industria De Diseno Textile Sa vs Oriental Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 19 May, 2015
In N.R. Dongre & Ors. v. Whirlpool Corp. & Anr., AIR 1995 Delhi
300, a Division Bench of this Court held that awareness of a
trademark in respect of goods of a trader is not necessarily restricted
only to the people of the country where such goods are freely available
but the knowledge and awareness reaches even shores of those
countries where the goods are not available. In para 15, the Division
Bench held as under:-
Bolt Technology Ou vs Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr. on 30 November, 2023
17. Second, evidence of reputation abroad may spill over in the
country through advertisement. The Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., AIR 1995 Del 300
(affirmed in appeal (1996) 5 SCC 714) said:
Itc Limited vs Central Park Private Limited & Anr. on 14 November, 2022
In NR Dongre (supra), the Court observed as under:
Sanjeev Juneja And Anr vs Terrace Pharmaceutical Private Ltd on 22 July, 2022
Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
provides that nothing in this Act shall entitle the
registered proprietor or registered user to interfere
with the rights of prior user. Conjoint reading of
Section 34, 27 and 28 would show that the rights of
registration are subject to Section 34 which can be
seen from the opening words of Section 28 of the Act
which states "Subject to the other provisions of this
Act, the registration of a trade mark shall, if valid,
give to the registered proprietor...." and also the
opening words of Section 34 which states "Nothing
in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered
user of registered trade mark to interfere......". Thus,
the scheme of the Act is such where rights of prior
user are recognized superior than that of the
13 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 26-12-2022 00:30:51 :::
CR No.5761 of 2019 (O&M) 14
registration and even the registered proprietor
cannot disturb/interfere with the rights of prior user.
The overall effect of collective reading of the
provisions of the Act is that the action for passing off
which is premised on the rights of prior user
generating a goodwill shall be unaffected by any
registration provided under the Act. This proposition
has been discussed in extenso in the case of N.R.
Dongre And Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation And
Anr. AIR 1995 Delhi 300 wherein Division Bench of
Delhi High Court recognized that the registration is
not an indefeasible right and the same is subject to
rights of prior user.
Champagne Moet And Chandon vs Moet'S on 27 October, 2004
(1) N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation and Ors., AIR 1995 DEL 300;
(2) Alfred Dunhill Limited v. Kartar Singh Makkar and Ors., 1999 PTC 294;
(3), Reliance Industries Limited v. Anand Traders and Ors., 1999 PTC 414;
(4) Sarabai International Ltd. and Anr. v. Sara Exports, 1985 PTC 105;
(5) V.S. Dhanasekar and Ors. v. K. Lokaiyan and Ors., 2004 PTC 455;
(6) Beecham Group Plc, v. S.R.K. Pharmaceuticals, 2004 PTC 391;
(7) Marconi Electronics v. Marconi Company Ltd., 2004 PTC 433.
Capital One Financial Corporation vs Capital One Private Ltd. And Ors. on 10 March, 2004
17. Mr. Sarkar then submits that for maintaining a passing off action the plaintiff is required to establish only the fact of existence of reputation and goodwill of its mark or name in Indian market, and not the fact of its use in India. The proposition is supported by the decisions in N.R. Dongre & Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation & Ors., AIR 1995 Del 300 (DB); Calvin Klein Inc. v. International Apparel Syndicate, 1996 PTC (16) 293 (Cal); Allergan Inc. v. Milment Oftho Industries and Ors.
M/S. Avtar Singh vs M/S. K.M. Products And Another on 21 May, 1996
13. Mr. Man Mohan Singh relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in N. R. Dongra and others v. Whirlpool Corporation (AIR 1995 Delhi 301), for the proposition that on a reading of Section 28(3) with Section 31(d) it is clear that the proprietor of the registered trade mark cannot file an infringement action against the proprietor of an identical or a similar trade mark. While Sections 28(3) and 31(b) on the one had dealt with the rights of registered proprietor of identical trade mark and bar action of infringement against each other, Section 27(2) on the other hand deals with the passing off action. The right of action under Section 27(2) are not affected by Section 28(3) and Section 31(d). Therefore, the registration of the trade mark under the Act is irrelevant in an action for passing of. The law of passing off as it has developed permits an action against a registered proprietor of a trade mark for its mendacious use for inducing and misleading the consumers into thinking that his goods are the goods of or are connected with the goods of a prior user of the trade mark. I fail to see how this proposition can at all be applied to the facts of this case.
M/S. Lakme Ltd. vs M/S. Subhash Trading And Others on 23 August, 1996
15. Counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand relied upon the Division Bench decision of this court in Shri Swaran Singh Trading and Appliances v. M/s. Usha Industries (India) New Delhi and anothers, , and also in the case of N. R. Dongre and another v. Whirlpool Corporation and another (1996 (2) Arb. LR. 488 (SC)), disposed of on 21.4.1995.