Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)Section 34 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Rati Traders vs K.P. Pouches Pvt. Ltd. on 30 July, 2004
In the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rati Traders v. K.P. Pouches Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (25) PTC 254 (MP). it was observed that in between two parties claiming actual user as against the prior user, the party who is prior in point of time will have the advantage over the other. Even in regard to the prior registration of the trademark, as against prior user, the action of the latter will prevail.
Century Traders vs Roshan Lal Duggar Co. on 27 April, 1977
36. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff referred to the judgment of a division Bench of this Court in Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar and Co. and Ors. in support of the proposition that a trader acquires a right of property in a distinctive mark merely by using it upon or in connection with his goods irrespective of the length of such user and the extent of his trade. The trader who acquires such mark is entitled to protection directly, the article having assumed vendible character is launched upon the market. In this case, it was observed that for the purpose of claiming such proprietorship of a mark, it is not necessary that the mark should have been used for a considerable length of time. As a matter of fact a single actual use with intent to continue such use confers a right to use such mark as a trademark. It is sufficient if the article with the mark upon it has actually become a vendible article in the market with intent on the part of the proprietor to continue its production and sales. It is not necessary that goods should have acquired a reputation for quality under such mark. Actual use of the mark under such circumstances showing an intention to adopt and use it as a trademark is a test rather than the extent or duration of time. A mere casual, intermittent or experimental use may be insufficient to show an intention to adopt the mark as a trademark for specific article or goods.
Consolidated Foods Corporation vs Brandon And Company Private Ltd. on 26 April, 1961
Learned Counsel further referred to the decision of a learned single judge of the Bombay High Court in Consolidated Foods Corporation v. Brandon and Co wherein similar observations were made.
Uniply Industries Ltd vs Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 1 May, 2001
44. Learned Counsel for the defendant referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Uniply Industries Ltd. v. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. , wherein some factors to be relied upon for determining prior user were considered. It was observed at para 8 as under
M/S. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. India Stationery Products Co. And ... on 23 January, 1989
Learned Counsel also referred to a judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Stationery Products Co. wherein it was noted that acquiescence means something more than mere silence on the part of the plaintiffs. Acquiescence means encouragement on the part of the plaintiff to the defendant. There should be a mistaken belief by the defendant that there is no objection by the plaintiff to its using the mark.
Visakha Chemicals vs Mala Ram And Sons on 1 February, 2006
34. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff relied on a judgment of this Court in Visakha Chemicals v. Mala Ram and Sons 2006 (32) PTC 441 in support of the proposition that in an action for passing off, prior use of the mark in point of time is the relevant test. In that case, the defendants had not placed any material on record showing sales or prior adoption of the mark.
London Rubber Co. Ltd vs Durex Products on 4 March, 1963
59. Section 12 of the said Act provides for registration of identical or similar marks of more than one proprietor both in case of honest concurrent user as well as "of other special circumstances". In this behalf learned Counsel for Page 0973 the defendant also drew the attention of this Court to the view taken in Holt and Co. (Leeds) Ltd.'s Application (1957) RPC 289 to the subject matter of the application and this includes use by the applicant of his mark before the conflicting mark was registered or used. The Apex Court was in agreement with this view in London Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Durex Products .