Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.73 seconds)
Documents citing The Southern Indian Mills Co. Ld. ... vs Burn And Co. Ld. And Ors. on 16 August, 1912

R. Gopalakrishnan vs M/S. Venkateshwara Camphor Works ... on 31 August, 2000

In the decision reported in Tavener Rut ledge Ld. v. Specters Ld. 1959 RPC 355, which is a judgment given by the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff was a sweet manufacturer and though there were certain differences in the mark of the defendant, the Chancery Division, whose decision (1969 RPC 83) the Court of Appeal confirmed held, that, " I think they wanted to get something equally striking and perhaps as near to that as they felt they could go without as they thought breaking the law and they cannot complain of being held to have done the Act deliberately if the course adopted by them terms out to be the wrong side of the line".
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - P Sridevan - Full Document

S. Veeraraghava Ayyar vs J.D. Muga Sait on 6 October, 1914

The basis for this pronouncement is the decision of CAVE, J., in Boissiere and Co. v. Brookner and Co. (1889) 6 I.L.R. 85. The learned Judge says: "where however he appears voluntarily and submits to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court there arises a legal obligation to obey the judgment. The question I have to decide in this case is what is meant by the word voluntarily. For the plaintiffs it is contended that every appearance is voluntary which is not made under duress. For the defendants it is submitted that as the foundation for the legal obligation is consent an appearance under protest affords no indication of consent to the jurisdiction, or, in other words, is not voluntary. Now, no one supposes that when a man appears voluntarily as a defendant in an action before a foreign Court he does so because he likes it; he appears because on the whole he deems it his interest to submit to have the dispute decided by the foreign tribunal and is take his chance of winning the suit; and if he enters into the litigation from those motives, intending to take advantage of the judgment if he wins, there is obviously a moral obligation on him to pay if he loses, and this moral obligation is recognised by our law as sufficient under the circumstances to constitute a legal obligation. If this is the true source of the obligation why should it not extend to the case of a man who appears, without duress, and therefore voluntarily in one sense; but who accompanies his appearance with a protest and appears, not because he is compelled to do so, but because he judges it to be for his interest to do so. That is, he intends to take all the advantage he hopes to gain by appearing and by a protest to relieve himself from the disadvantage. He wishes to have the benefit without the burden," and after discussing some of the authorities bearing on the question, the learned Judge comes to the conclusion that the appearance of the defendant was voluntary notwithstanding the protest. Dicey (Conflict of Laws) accepts this as good law. See case 2 in page 370. See also Foote on Private International Jurisprudence, pages 552 and 553. I am not sure from the remarks of Westlake in his book on "Private International Law" that he is satisfied with the decision of Cave, J. (see remarks at. page 378).
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Aravind Laboratories vs V.A. Samy Chemical Works on 8 July, 1986

In the case reported in Fitchetts Ld. v. Loubet & Co. Ld. (1919) 36 RPC 296 the Chancery Division considered the marks "Y-To" and "Lito" and came to the conclusion that there is no probability of deception. In the case reported in Application by Thomas A. Smith Ltd. to register a trade mark 1913 RPC 363 the Chancery Division considered the trade marks "Limit" and "Summit" and held that the words are in common use, each conveying a perfectly definite idea and there is no possibility of anyone being deceived by the two marks. In the case reported in Off. Cleaning Servs. v. Westminster Etc. Assoc. (1944 (2) All ER 269) the Court of Appeal considered the names of "Office Cleaning Service Ltd." and "Westminster Office Cleaning Association" and held that the differentiation between the words "services" and "Association" was sufficient to distinguish the defendants' business from that of the plaintiffs.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Patinjara Manakal Parameswaran ... vs M.K. Subramania Pattar on 16 April, 1914

1. We think that the appeal must be allowed. The counter-petitioner, no doubt, objected to the jurisdiction in the Court of first instance in Cochin State. But, when a decree had been passed against him, he invoked the aid of the Appellate Court there without any such reservation. This, it seems to us, was a submission to the Cochin Courts which debars him from relying on any defect in their jurisdiction now, vide Boissiere and Co. v. Brockner and Co. 6 T.L.R. 85. We, therefore, without reference to the other contentions relied on by the petitioner-appellant, set aside the lower Appellate Court's order. The Subordinate Judge will restore the execution petition to his file and proceed with the disposal of it according to law.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1