Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.85 seconds)
Premier Tissues India Ltd. vs Rolia Tissues Industries & Anr. on 22 February, 2012 cites

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

20. Law relating to passing off action is quite well settled in order to succeed in getting an interim injunction. Party claiming prior/earlier user of the mark in question has to established prior user in time by production of cogent and clear evidence. As far as the case of infringement is concerned, Supreme Court in the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutta Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories; AIR 1965 SC 980 at 990 has laid down as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 512 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Revlon Inc. And Ors. vs Sarita Manufacturing Co. on 1 May, 1997

"12. The question was whether the Defendant had made out a case for prior use. The learned Single Judge noted that trade mark registration was given to the Plaintiff in 2005 with effect from 1998 and 2002. Copyright registration was obtained in 2005. Although the earliest use of the disputed mark was claimed by the Plaintiff to be 1996, the invoices and bills produced were of the years 2004 onwards. The income tax and sales tax returns from 1996 onwards mentioned the Plaintiff‟s income and sales but not its products. On the other hand, the Defendant had been able to show three advertisements, two of 26.12.1993 and one of 1999, trade enquiries of 1993, 1994 and 1995 and different invoices pertaining to Calcutta and Madras. The Plaintiff‟s case was that the Defendant was a squatter and merely advertising the mark but never using it. Referring to the CS (OS) No.1672/2011 Page 22 of 34 judgment in Revlon Inc. v. Sarita Manufacturing Company, AIR 1998 Delhi 38: 1997 (17) PTC 394 (Del.), it was held by the learned single Judge that the dissemination of knowledge of a trade mark in respect of a product through advertisement in media amounts to use of the trade mark whether or not the advertisement is coupled with the actual existence of the product in the market. The learned single Judge negatived the argument of the Plaintiff about the advertisements produced by the Defendant amounting to no credible evidence of user.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - S K Mahajan - Full Document

Swaran Singh vs Usha Industries (India) And Anr. on 18 November, 1985

13. The other issue was of prior user. The learned single Judge relied on the copies of the partnership deeds where Harpreet Singh was shown as partner of the firm from 1991 in relation to the business and the product. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Swaran Singh v. Usha Industries (India), AIR 1986 Del 343: 1986 (60 PTC 287 (Del) (DB) and Mocolube India Ltd. v. Maggon Auto Centre, 2008 (36) PTC 231 (Delhi) to hold that the Plaintiff has been able to establish prima facie existence of registration in its favour, in relation to the subject marks, with effect from 1998 and 2002. Yet there was no credible evidence of proof of the use of the mark from that period; the materials were sketchy. It was held that the Plaintiff had not produced any material to show that it had used the mark prior to 1998. On the other hand, the Defendant has "prima facie shown that the mark was advertized in 1993 and 1999 and trade enquiries through original letters, indents, etc. existed in 1993, 1994, 1995 onwards". The issuance of telegraphic name „TUFF‟ by the Postal Department in 1994, 1995 was also noticed and it was held that the Defendant was "prima facie continuously using the marks since 1993 at least, enabling it to the benefit of Section 34 of the Act." Accordingly the injunction was refused.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1