Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)
Kia Wang vs The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. on 15 September, 2023 cites

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

Bpi Sports Llc vs Saurabh Gulati & Anr. on 27 April, 2023

19. The similarity in the two trademarks is writ large on a bare perusal. Two consequences flow from this conclusion under the Trademarks regime. Firstly, there is every likelihood of confusion amongst the public due to similarity of the rival trademarks and identity of the goods of the competing parties and consequent impact on the reputation and goodwill of the Petitioner. Secondly, this makes Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAUSHAL C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 2/2021 Page 15 of 22 KUMAR SACHDEVA Signing Date:20.09.2023 18:46:07 the impugned mark vulnerable to cancellation of its registration under Section 11(10)(ii) of the 1999 Act which requires the Registrar of Trade Marks, while registering the mark, to take into consideration the bad faith involved, either of the applicant or the opponent, affecting the right relating to the trade mark. The provision was considered and interpreted by this Court in BPI Sports LLC (supra) and the Court held that a purposive interpretation must be given looking at the intent and purpose of sub-section (10)(ii) of Section 11, which is to disentitle registration of a trademark, the request for registration of which is tainted by bad faith. The expression 'bad faith' is not defined under the 1999 Act and the Court cogitated on the concept by referring to some English decisions and dictionaries. Broadly understood, 'bad faith' is the opposite of 'good faith' and conceptually understood, it is synonymous to 'dishonest intention'. Relevant paragraphs from the judgment are as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - C H Shankar - 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