M/S. M.L. Brothers Llp vs Uma Impact Private Limited & Anr on 15 May, 2023
49. Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, Mr. Lall submits, would
not apply, as no application under the said provision has been made by
the defendants. Nor, in their pleadings, have the defendants sought to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 36 of 140
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.07.2023
15:35:51
take shelter behind Section 30(2) or Section 35 of the Trade Marks
Act, obviously for the reason that it is not their pleaded case that
―Gluco-D‖ is a descriptor. The case set up by the defendants in the
pleadings is, rather, that ―Gluco-D‖ is only a part of the overall mark
―Prolyte Gluco-D ++‖. Mr. Lall contradistinguishes the present case
from Marico10 on the basis of para 36 to 37 of the said decision.