cites: 67071781 doctypes: sc,highcourts

Sunrider Corporation vs Hindustan Lever Limited And Anr. on 27 July, 2007

Further, two Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 146/2022 Page 32 of 34 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:12.02.2024 12:11:56 coordinate Benches of this Court in Sunrider Corporation (supra) and Mahesh Gupta (supra) held that the time prescribed in Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules is mandatory.

Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Hastimal Jain Trading As Oswal ... vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr. on 8 December, 1999

In Hastimal Jain trading as Oswal Industries v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., (1999 SCC OnLine Del 1020), the Full Bench has taken a view that the time period was directory in view of Rule 53(2) of the 1959 Rules.

Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 33 - S N Variava - Full Document

Wyeth Holdings Corpn. And Anr. vs Controller General Of Patents, Desings ... on 8 August, 2006

45. A reading of all the above decisions along with the discussion above, shows that the Gujarat High Court in Wyeth Holdings Corp (supra) held in the context of the 2002 Rules that the time period is directory following Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra).

Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - R R Tripathi - Full Document

Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005

45. A reading of all the above decisions along with the discussion above, shows that the Gujarat High Court in Wyeth Holdings Corp (supra) held in the context of the 2002 Rules that the time period is directory following Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra).

Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 1674 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Mahesh Gupta vs Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr on 8 August, 2022

Further, two Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 146/2022 Page 32 of 34 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:12.02.2024 12:11:56 coordinate Benches of this Court in Sunrider Corporation (supra) and Mahesh Gupta (supra) held that the time prescribed in Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules is mandatory.

Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - P M Singh - Full Document

Ms Aman Engineering Works vs Registrar Trade Marks Trade Marks ... on 4 November, 2022

(iv) that whenever any period is prescribed in the Rules, it has to be taken as having been prescribed in the Act itself. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the ld. Single Judge of this Court in MS Aman Engineering Works v. Registrar Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi & Anr. (2022/DHC/004701).

Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - N Chawla - Full Document

M/S Bhuwalka Steel Industries.Ltd & Anr vs U.O.I & Ors on 24 March, 2017

(i) that the settled legal position is that the subordinate legislation i.e., the Rules cannot go beyond the statute or cannot contradict the statute in any manner. Reliance is placed upon paragraph 33 of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017 (5) SCC 598598) to state that, firstly, a deeming fiction cannot be created in the Rules and, secondly, the Rules cannot go in a manner so as to the contrary to the parent enactment;

Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Chief Forest Conservator (Wild Life) ... vs Nisar Khan on 18 February, 2003

In Sunrider Corporation, U.S.A. v. Hindustan Lever Limited & Anr., (2007 SCC OnLine Del 1018), the ld. Single Judge holds that Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules has been validly framed, which should be treated as part of the Act following the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) v. Nisar Khan, (2003) 4 SCC 595. The Court then went on to observe that Rule 50 of the Rules is mandatory in nature. The relevant portion is set out below:

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 19 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results