Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.71 seconds)
Shakti Bhog Foods Limited vs Parle Products Private Limited on 23 December, 2014 cites

Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004

As observed by the Supreme Court in Milment Oftho Industries's case, the Court must keep in mind the fact that now-a-days, the field of medicine is of an international character. Doctors, particularly eminent Doctors, medical practitioners and persons or Companies connected with medical field keep abreast of latest developments in medicine preparations worldwide. Medical literature is freely available in this country. Doctors and medical practitioners and persons connected with the medical field regularly attend medical conferences, symposiums, lectures, etc. Goods are widely advertised in newspapers, periodicals, magazines, and on the internet. This results in a product acquiring a worldwide reputation in a very short time. If the trade mark in respect of a medicine is associated with the Defendant worldwide, it would lead to an anomalous situation if an identical mark in respect of a similar medicine is allowed to be sold in India only on the ground that the Plaintiff got it registered in India first. The ultimate test should be who is first in the market.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 121 - S N Variava - Full Document

P.M. Diesel Pvt. Ltd. vs Thukral Mechanical Works And Anr. on 27 October, 2004

Ltd. v. Thukral Mechanical Works.16 In this case the plaintiff was a registered proprietor of the trademark 'FIELD MARSHAL' The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant in respect of infringement of its trademark. The defendant had also obtained registration of trademark 'FIELD MARSHAL'. The plaintiff had filed an application for cancellation of defendant's registration. The Court observed in paragraphs 7, 13 and 17 as under :
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Malar Network (P) Ltd vs Arun Prasath D on 28 March, 2011

In the case of Malar Network (P) Ltd. v. Arun Prasath5, the plaintiff had filed a suit for infringement to restrain the defendants in respect of the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Malar TV' as the defendant had started a business under the name 'Malar TV'. One of the defences to the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff was that the word 'Malar' was a general word in Tamil, it meant a magazine. The learned Single Judge declined interlocutory relief holding that the words 'Malar TV' have become publicia juris. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. In this case, the Madras High Court made a prima facie enquiry into the question whether the words in the trademark 'Malar' and 'TV' were publicia juris and did not automatically grant injunction on the basis of the registration.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001

The important factor which has been directed to be taken into consideration in such matters by the Apex Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2001 PTC 300 (SC) of ensuring public interest will have to be given go bye, if the injunction is to be granted in favour of such fraudulent and deceptive registered user of trademark."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

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

In Aravind Laboratories v. V.A. Samy Chemical Works,17 the registration of trade mark in favour of the plaintiff was more than seven years old and, therefore, the Court applied section 32 of the Trade Marks Act, 1958 that the registration is to be conclusive as to validity after seven years. After seven years, the registration can be questioned only on the ground that the original registration was obtained by fraud. However, the defendant had failed to institute rectification proceedings on the ground that the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark was not valid. Hence, the Court did not allow the defendant to raise the plea in the plaintiff's suit for infringement 17 AIR 1987 Madras 265 77 ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2014 23:46:21 ::: Uday AppL674.2012-23.12.2014-D that the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark was invalid and held that the plaintiff is entitled to market his product in the registered trade mark as long as he continues to be the registered proprietor of the said trade mark.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next