Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Indo Shell Cast Private Limited, A ... vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Indo ... on 14 September, 2007

Yashasvi Havelia vs Prabhtej Bhatia And Anr on 22 January, 2026

In the judgment in Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine IPAB 29, it was observed by the IPAB that the onus of proving "non-user" is on the person who pleads the same. However, when the applicant pleads "non-user", the respondent must specifically deny it. Therefore, in the absence of a specific denial, it was held that the allegations of "non-user" stood admitted."
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Wilhelmsen Ships Service As vs Vishal Anand Trading As Sba & Anr on 22 January, 2026

In the judgment in Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine IPAB 29, it was observed by the IPAB that the onus of proving "non-user" is on the person who pleads the same. However, when the applicant pleads "non-user", the respondent must specifically deny it. Therefore, in the absence of a specific denial, it was held that the allegations of "non-user" stood admitted."
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Irvinder Kaur Chadha Supreme Agencie vs Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 30 July, 2024

In the judgment in Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine IPAB 29, it was observed by the IPAB that the onus of proving "non-user" is on the person who pleads the same. However, when the applicant pleads "non- user", the respondent must specifically deny it. Therefore, in the absence of a specific denial, it was held that the allegations of "non- user" stood admitted.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Irvinder Kaur Chadha Supreme Agencie vs Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd. And Anr on 30 July, 2024

In the judgment in Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine IPAB 29, it was observed by the IPAB that the onus of proving "non-user" is on the person who pleads the same. However, when the applicant pleads "non- user", the respondent must specifically deny it. Therefore, in the absence of a specific denial, it was held that the allegations of "non- user" stood admitted.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dorco Co Ltd vs Durga Enterprises And Anr on 10 March, 2023

In the judgment in Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd.¸ 2012 SCC IPAB 29, it was observed by the IPAB that the onus of proving "non-user" is on the person who pleads the same. However, when the applicant pleads "non-user", the respondent must specifically deny it. Therefore, in the absence of a specific denial, it was held that the allegations of "non-user" stood admitted.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Bansal - Full Document

Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. vs Kamal Bansal on 27 February, 2025

In the judgment in Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd.¸ 2012 SCC IPAB 29, it was observed by the IPAB that the onus of proving "non-user" is on the person who pleads the same. However, when the applicant pleads "non- user", the respondent must specifically deny it. Therefore, in the absence of a specific denial, it was held that the allegations of "non-user" stood admitted.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Bansal - Full Document

Oncquest Laboratories Limited vs Manish Kumar & Anr on 18 July, 2025

In the judgment in Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd.¸ 2012 SCC IPAB 29, it was observed by the IPAB that the onus of proving "non-user" is on the person who pleads the same. However, when the applicant pleads "non-user", the respondent must specifically deny it. Therefore, in the absence of a specific denial, it was held that the allegations of "non-user" stood admitted.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Bansal - Full Document

Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited vs Kulbir Singh, & Anr on 22 August, 2025

In the judgment in Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine IPAB 29, it was observed by the IPAB that the onus of proving "non-user" is on the person who pleads the same. However, when the applicant pleads "non-user", the respondent must specifically deny it. Therefore, in the absence of a specific denial, it was held that the allegations of "non-user" stood admitted.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Le Shark Apparel Limited vs Anil Shah And 2 Ors on 14 October, 2025

70. I am of the view that the Respondents' reliance on the judgments of this Court in Eagle Potteries Private Ltd. (supra) and 42 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:40:13 ::: COMMP-538-22.doc Shell Transource Limited (supra) is misconceived. There is no dispute with the proposition enunciated in those judgments that the burden of proving non-use first lies on the Petitioner seeking rectification. These judgments will not apply in the present case, as the Respondents though filing pleadings affirming that it has used the mark, relies on fabricated documents to sustain their case. Having prima facie found the material relied upon by the Respondents to be ex facie fabricated, the Respondents cannot escape the consequences by arguing that the burden continues to remain on the Petitioner to lead evidence of non-use of the impugned registered mark.
Bombay High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document
1   2 Next