Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Section 2 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
In Ruston and Hornby Limited Vs. Z. Engineering Co. AIR 1970 SC 1649 their Lordships of the Apex Court held that in a suit for perpetual injunction for the infringement of trade mark, it is not necessary to prove actual deception or damage. It is enough if there is probability of confusion between the goods by the use of mark which resembles the registered trade mark of the owner. In the said case the registered trade mark was Ruston. The competitor started using the trade mark Ruston India, but even that was held to be an infringement.