Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.91 seconds)
Data Infosys Ltd. And Ors. vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. on 5 February, 2016 cites

United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals ... on 18 May, 2012

16. Ms. Prathiba Singh, learned senior counsel for one of the intervening parties who addressed arguments, supported the interpretation of the defendant and stated that the consistent view of this Court as to the mandatory nature of Section 124(1)(b) is sound and should not be disturbed. She argued that Section 124 is a special provision, which relates to situations wherein the defendant seeks to impeach a registered mark's validity in the FAO (OS) 403/2012 Page 12 context of, or during pendency of infringement proceedings. This provision is schematically placed after the general power conferred upon IPAB, for rectifying the trademark. Therefore, being a special provision, it prevails and the Court, in its obligation to harmonize any perceived conflict between the various provisions (wherever discerned) should apply the well accepted principle that a special provision would prevail over general provisions. It was therefore, argued that the summary of the legal position indicated in United Biotech (supra) should be left undisturbed and ought to guide the interpretation of Section 124.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 29 - A K Sikri - Full Document

The J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 12 December, 1960

This mechanism, i.e. Section 124(1)(a)(ii) is to be seen as a mandatory step to ensure that litigants do not frustrate an infringement proceeding or trial in a suit. It is thus urged that the important underlying purpose is to ensure that the discipline of approaching the IPAB only with the permission of the FAO (OS) 403/2012 Page 13 Court is an essential safeguard for the litigants who might be otherwise directly approaching the IPAB and thwart the infringement action which can independently proceed in terms of Section 125. The power under Section 124(5) in this regard was underlined. Learned counsel relied on the proposition that the Parliament creates every provision with a purpose and intention that each one of them should have effect and placed reliance on The J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1170.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 313 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next