Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.42 seconds)Section 34 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 47 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Cluett Peabody & Co. Inc. vs Arrow Apparals on 24 October, 1997
66. The facts of the present case indicate that the plaintiff intended
at the time of making the application to use the mark. This is evident
from the fact that it used the mark from 16th October, 2004. That it did
so after three years of the mark being registered does not satisfy the
test in Cluett Peabody's case. The plaintiff has also been vigorously
defending its mark. The defendants licencee Claris Lifesciences
Limited applied for registration of the mark "PROFOL" on 25th
September, 2003. On 8th July, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an opposition
to the same. Claris Lifesciences Limited thereupon withdrew its
application for registration.