Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.03 seconds)Section 9 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd on 9 November, 2001
"13. Thus, it prima facie stands established on record
that the defendant is endeavouring to pass off its
products under the trade mark "Reddy" with a view to
confuse and mislead the customers by making them
believe that the products are manufactured by the
plaintiff company. Even now, the defendant appears to
be having no manufacturing unit for manufacturing
pharmaceutical preparations and it is only putting the
name "Reddy" on the pharmaceutical preparations
manufactured by others. The absence of the
registration of the trade mark in favour of the plaintiff
and the pendency of the application in this regard is of
no consequence for the reason that the defendant's
impugned action is squarely covered within the
definition of "passing off'. The Apex Court in the case
of Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C)-IPD 54/2021 Page 25 of 36
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:03.05.2024
17:45:44
Ltd. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 2002 (24) PTC 121
(SO, had examined a similar controversy. The name
"Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd." was held to have
acquired a distinctiveness and secondary meaning in
the trade circle and people had come to associate this
name with a certain standard of goods and services.
The effort of the defendant/Mahendra & Mahendra
Paper Mills Ltd., to use the said name was held to be
capable of creating an impression of a connection with
the plaintiffs group of Companies and it was held that
such user may affect the plaintiff prejudicially in the
business and trading activities. The plaintiffs plea for
ad interim injunction was found justified.
National Garments, Kaloor, Cochin vs National Apparels, Ernakulam, Cochin on 5 April, 1989
Arb LR 188 (P&H) Rajindera Sahoo Vs
Ganeswar Swain AIR 1987 Orissa 156 National
Garments, Kaloor Cochin Vs National Apparels
Ernakulam Cochin AIR 1990 Kerala 119 Smt. Vinay
Chawla Vs M/S Chandamand Tovtronix Pvt Ltd. AIR
1997 Delhi Page 234, Parkash Industries Ltd Vs Rajan
Enterprises 1993 (2) Arbitration Law Reporter Page
382 N R Donarm Vs Whirlpool Corp. 1996 DTC (16)
Page 476 Ramesh Chandra Saha Vs Prakash Chandra
Das and another 2000 (2) Arbitration Law Reporter
Page 316 and Shalimar Chemical Works Limited Vs
Surender Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) & Qrs. 2000
(1) Civil Court Cases 665 (A.P.)
Accordingly both these issues are hereby decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Ramesh Chandra Sahu vs Regional Transport Authority, 9 ... on 22 April, 2019
Arb LR 188 (P&H) Rajindera Sahoo Vs
Ganeswar Swain AIR 1987 Orissa 156 National
Garments, Kaloor Cochin Vs National Apparels
Ernakulam Cochin AIR 1990 Kerala 119 Smt. Vinay
Chawla Vs M/S Chandamand Tovtronix Pvt Ltd. AIR
1997 Delhi Page 234, Parkash Industries Ltd Vs Rajan
Enterprises 1993 (2) Arbitration Law Reporter Page
382 N R Donarm Vs Whirlpool Corp. 1996 DTC (16)
Page 476 Ramesh Chandra Saha Vs Prakash Chandra
Das and another 2000 (2) Arbitration Law Reporter
Page 316 and Shalimar Chemical Works Limited Vs
Surender Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) & Qrs. 2000
(1) Civil Court Cases 665 (A.P.)
Accordingly both these issues are hereby decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Pernod Ricard S.A.France & Another vs Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 6 November, 2008
35. The ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also pointed out that the
judgment relied upon by the IPAB in Pernod Ricord (supra) has been set
aside by Supreme Court. The proposition, therefore, that objections under
sections 9, 11 cannot be considered in cancellation petitions is no longer
good law. The adoption of the mark/name "ROSHAN STUDIOS" or
"ROSHAN PORTRAITS" is not honest. In any event the intention of the
party even if innocent but is resulting in passing off, the mark would not be
liable to be continued on register. The Respondents have given no plausible
justification for using the impugned name/mark. The Respondents claim
that it is the owner of the mark is itself flawed as the goodwill in the name
does not belong to the Respondents but to the Petitioner. Moreover, the
Court also has a duty in cancellation petitions to ensure that the purity of
register is clearly maintained. This has been repeatedly reaffirmed in several
decisions of this Court as also the Supreme Court.
Chandrakant Sahu vs Coal India Limited 47 Wa/48/2018 Indra ... on 10 December, 2019
37. In this background, the clear conclusions that emerge are that the
Petitioner is the prior adopter of the mark/name since 1950s and the actual
name was used since 1960. The Petitioner has acquired extensive and
widespread goodwill. The geographical proximity of the Petitioner's and the
Respondents' establishment clearly shows that the Respondents' adoption
was with complete knowledge of the Petitioner's name. The explanation that
Respondents was the first to establish in Panchkula is bereft of merit as prior
user cannot be judged city wise or colony-wise. This is well settled in
Laxmikant Patel (Supra). The registration of the Respondents mark would
be contrary to the statutory mandate as encompassed in Sections 9 and 11.
The mere fact that the Petitioner may have missed opposing the mark does
not mean that the cancellation cannot be sought.
Dr. Reddy???S Laboratory Ltd. vs Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 13 September, 2013
The relevant portion of Dr Reddy's Laboratories
(supra) is set out below: