Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.86 seconds)
Kia Wang vs The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. on 15 September, 2023 cites

Hardie Trading Ltd. And Anr vs Addisons Paint And Chemicals Ltd on 12 September, 2003

The Supreme Court in Hardie Trading Ltd. (supra), considered the phrase 'person aggrieved' albeit referring to Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the interpretation is relevant since grounds of Sections 46 and 56 of the said Act are pari materia with Sections 47 and 57 of the 1999 Act. Relevant passages from the judgment are as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 58 - R Pal - Full Document

N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

10. Petitioner is the 'prior adopter' and 'prior user' of the trademark and hence by being 'first in the market' to adopt and use the trademark, Petitioner enjoys a superior right in his trademark, over the registration of the impugned trademark, in view of the settled law in Milmet Oftho Industries and Others v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624; N.R. Dongre and Others v. Whirlpool Corporation and Another, (1996) 5 SCC 714; S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683 and Neon Laboratories Limited v. Medical Technologies Limited and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 672. Having known Petitioner's popular trademark, there is no plausible or justified reason with Respondent No.2 for adopting and registering the impugned trademark, save and except, the dishonest and malafide intention of misappropriating the enormous goodwill and reputation in the trademark for making illegal and unlawful gains.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 347 - Full Document

Neon Laboratories Ltd vs Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors on 5 October, 2015

In Neon Laboratories (supra), the Supreme Court observed that 'first user' rule is a seminal part of the 1999 Act and in fact recognized that the right of a 'prior user' is superior to a registrant of the trademark, reiterating and reaffirming the law declared in S. Syed Mohideen (supra). Therefore, it is a well settled principle of Trademark law that a prior user's rights will override the rights of a subsequent user even though the latter's mark may be a registered trademark. Petitioner has categorically pleaded use of the trademark from 2014 and claimed that the same is prior to that of Respondent No. 2, who despite being impleaded as a party by the Petitioner and being served with the notice of this petition, chose to remain absent, instead of contesting the position. In the absence of a reply controverting the pleadings, the same have to be treated as admitted albeit in this case Petitioner has been able to show 'prior user'. Therefore, in wake of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAUSHAL C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 2/2021 Page 14 of 22 KUMAR SACHDEVA Signing Date:20.09.2023 18:46:07 prior use of the trademark by the Petitioner, coupled with several registrations abroad, in support of which registration certificates, whose validity is unrefuted and unrebutted, have been filed, as well as the continuous and uninterrupted use of the mark in course of trade in respect of the goods aforementioned, the trademark has become distinctive of the goods of the Petitioner and is associated with him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 185 - V Sen - Full Document

Khoday Distilleries Limited (Now Known ... vs The Scotch Whisky Association And ... on 27 May, 2008

In Khoday Distilleries Limited (now known as Khoday India Limited) v. Scotch Whisky Association and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 723, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of maintaining purity of the Register of Trade Marks and held that public interest has to be kept in view. It was observed that what is necessary for the Registrar of Trade Marks, when registering a trademark is to first arrive at a conclusion as to whether having regard to the nature of the mark sought to be registered and the use thereof as also the class of buyers, there is a likelihood of deception or confusion and if the answer is in the affirmative, rectification and correction of the Register may be entertained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 83 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1