Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 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

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
1