Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.58 seconds)
Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014 cites

Marico Limited vs Agro Tech Foods Limited on 1 November, 2010

56. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited (supra) has also held that since as per Section 31 the registration is only a prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, it is open to the Court to go into the question of tentative validity of the registration while considering the application for grant of injunction. Of course, the onus lies on the person who challenges the validity of the mark and he will have to establish that the registration of trade mark in favour of the proprietor thereof is prima facie or tentatively not valid.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 60 - V J Mehta - Full Document

M/S Gufic Ltd. & Another vs Clinique Laboratories, Llc & Anr on 9 July, 2010

In the case of Gufic Ltd. v. Clinique Laboratories13, the plaintiff therein had filed a suit in respect of infringement of its trademark 'CLINIQUE'. An ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. An application for vacating the injunction was moved by the defendants. It was the case of the defendants that they were using mark 'CLINIQUE' for which they held a registration and, therefore, they could not be injuncted. The plaintiff countered this case of the defendant by contending that the trademark 'CLINIQUE' held by the defendants could not have been granted and it was bad in law and was liable to be ignored for the purpose of interim orders. The learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court rejected the arguments of the defendants that since the mark 'CLINIQUE' was registered in their favour, the Court could not go beyond the registration at the interlocutory stage. The learned Judge observed as under :
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 18 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1