Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)
Mr. S. P. Garg vs M/S Sumangal Calendar Company on 18 May, 2010 cites

Lowenbrau Ag & Another vs Jagpin Breweries Ltd & Another on 14 January, 2009

32.6 The rights conferred by registration of a mark are encapsulated in Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act. Section 28 provides that subject to other provisions of the Trade Marks Act the registration of the mark shall confer on the owner exclusive right of use of the trademark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the mark is registered, and consequently enable a registered proprietor to obtain necessary relief in the event of infringement of his trademark, in the manner provided in the Act. This is subject to the mark being a valid. The validity of the mark in an action for infringement can be enquired into either by the court or the statutory authority depending on where and at which stage the action is pending. [See Lowenbrau AG & Anr. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd. & Anr., 157 (2009) DLT 791]. The right to exclusive use of a registered mark conferred upon the owner of such a mark is subject to conditions and limitations to which the registration is subjected to. In the context of the present case in my view sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act would bring within its ambit any disclaimers which are set out at the time of registration of the mark. (emphasis supplied)
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 34 - S Khanna - Full Document

K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969

9. 'In the case of K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar Vs. Ambal & Co. and another, reported in AIR 1970 SC 146 it has been held that the resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye and ocular comparison is not always the decisive test. Therefore, even if there be no resemblance between the two marks that does not matter when there is a close affinity of sound between the distinctive features of the two marks. The Supreme Court further pointed out that merely because the distinctive words used in both the marks have distinctive meaning it cannot be said that the phonetic resemblance does not lead to confusion, when it is likely that majority of the customers are not capable of understanding the fine distinction between the meanings of the two words. In the same case the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether there is striking similarity and affinity of sound between the words "AMBAL" and "ANDAL". After considering various decisions, the Supreme Court held that there is a close affinity of sound between the words "AMBAL" and "ANDAL".
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 153 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969

Similarly in the case Suit No. 174/08/01 22 of Ruston Vs. Zamindara Engg. (supra), the Supreme Court came to consider whether there was resemblance between the words "RUSTON" and "RUSTAM", and on consideration of various decisions came to uphold the decision of the High Court that there was deceptive resemblance between the words "RUSTON" and "RUSTAM" and therefore, the use of the bare word "RUSTAM"
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 289 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 980, it was held that in an action for infringement, the plaintiff must, no doubt, make out that the use of the defendant's mark is likely to deceive, but where the similarity between the plaintiff's and defendant's mark is so close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and the court reaches the conclusion that there is in imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the plaintiff's rights are violated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 512 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1   2 Next