Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
Contests2Win.Com India Private ... vs Cell Cast Interactive India Private ... on 18 April, 2007
cites
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
7. The counsel for the parties have relied on several decisions to buttress their respective arguments. Reference is made to the decisions in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. , Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Z. Engineering Co. , Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd. , Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. , Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Limited 1998 PTC (18) (DB), Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth and Anr. , Kala Niketan v. Kala Niketan , Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan , Horlickss Malted Milk Company v. Summerskill Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases (Vol.
Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 6 May, 2004
13. The next question is: whether the defendant was using the said word "2win" bona fide. Prima facie, there is no material to doubt the intentions of Page 0758 the defendant. Whereas, the defendant is a renowned company doing the stated business at the global level since long. The defendant has equally spent a substantial amount of about Rs. 2.5 crores for promotion of its business in India with the nomenclature "Bid2Win". Besides, the product offered by the defendant is different than the product of the plaintiff. The product of the defendant is reverse auction bid. I am conscious of the observations of the apex Court in Satyam Infoway Ltd.s case, particularly paragraph 33 that the argument of operating in different field will be of no avail. At the same time, at this stage of the proceedings, in the present case, it is not possible to take a view that the user of the word "2win" by the defendant is not bona fide and the use of that word is common world-wide and that the word "2win" is not a distinctive trade mark or domain name exclusively of the plaintiff.
Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. And Others on 10 October, 1995
7. The counsel for the parties have relied on several decisions to buttress their respective arguments. Reference is made to the decisions in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. , Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Z. Engineering Co. , Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd. , Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. , Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Limited 1998 PTC (18) (DB), Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth and Anr. , Kala Niketan v. Kala Niketan , Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan , Horlickss Malted Milk Company v. Summerskill Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases (Vol.
Aktiebolaget Volvo Of Sweden vs Volvo Steels Ltd. Of Gujarat (India) on 16 October, 1997
7. The counsel for the parties have relied on several decisions to buttress their respective arguments. Reference is made to the decisions in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. , Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Z. Engineering Co. , Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd. , Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. , Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Limited 1998 PTC (18) (DB), Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth and Anr. , Kala Niketan v. Kala Niketan , Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan , Horlickss Malted Milk Company v. Summerskill Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases (Vol.
Rediff Communication Limited vs Cyberbooth & Another on 22 April, 1999
7. The counsel for the parties have relied on several decisions to buttress their respective arguments. Reference is made to the decisions in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. , Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Z. Engineering Co. , Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd. , Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. , Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Limited 1998 PTC (18) (DB), Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth and Anr. , Kala Niketan v. Kala Niketan , Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan , Horlickss Malted Milk Company v. Summerskill Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases (Vol.
Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dgawan & Anr. on 6 January, 1999
However, we are concerned with the word/suffix "2win". At this stage, prima facie, having regard to the material placed before me by the defendant, it is not possible to take the view that the word "2win" has been invented by the plaintiff as is claimed or is exclusive to the plaintiff. From the compilation of documents placed on record by the defendant, it is seen that the user of the word "2win" is common and in use world over. Relying on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Automatic Electric Ltd. (supra) coupled with the fact that the plaintiff has already applied for registration of mark, viz., "2win", it was argued that only a person having proprietary right can apply for registration. There can be no dispute with the proposition that only a person having proprietary right can apply for registration. However, in fact, whether such person has a proprietary right as claimed will be adjudicated in those proceedings. Merely because the plaintiff has applied for registration of word "2win", that by itself does not lead to conclusion that the plaintiff has proprietary right in that word.
Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959
7. The counsel for the parties have relied on several decisions to buttress their respective arguments. Reference is made to the decisions in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. , Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Z. Engineering Co. , Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd. , Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. , Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Limited 1998 PTC (18) (DB), Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth and Anr. , Kala Niketan v. Kala Niketan , Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan , Horlickss Malted Milk Company v. Summerskill Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases (Vol.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Kala Niketan vs Kala Niketan on 11 September, 1981
7. The counsel for the parties have relied on several decisions to buttress their respective arguments. Reference is made to the decisions in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. , Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Z. Engineering Co. , Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd. , Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. , Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Limited 1998 PTC (18) (DB), Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth and Anr. , Kala Niketan v. Kala Niketan , Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan , Horlickss Malted Milk Company v. Summerskill Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases (Vol.
1