Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.39 seconds)Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 91 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S Vans Inc. Usa vs Fcb Garment Tex India ( P) Ltd. And Anr on 6 July, 2022
11. If however, a well known mark is given a retrospective operation, then it
may date back to the very date on which the mark was registered, and that
would be inconsistent with the scheme envisaged under Sec.11(6) of the
Act. And, if retrospective operation is ever permitted, it will be a licence to
stamp on the honest and concurrent user of similar trademark of other
proprietors in the same class or in different classes. That never has been the
16/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(T)CMA(TM) No.80 of 2023
legislative intent enabling declaration of marks as a well known mark. Here
this Court agrees with the ratio of the Delhi High Court in the Vans case
12.1 There is one aspect which this court however, would like to clarify. As
rightly argued by the learned amicus, while registration of a trade mark aims
to protect the consumers of goods and services, declaration of a mark as a
well known trademark goes to protect the user thereof. He however, made a
statement that while trademark is a property within the meaning of Article
300A of the Constitution, it still will not be entitled to any protection as a
fundamental right within Article 19(1)(g), since it aims to protect the
consumers and the not the owner.
M/S Vans Inc Usa vs Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr on 25 April, 2023
IPD-TM) 161/2021 & I.A. 15763/2022] and
VANS Vs. Fateh Chand Bhansali &Anr. [Delhi High Court-C.O.
(Comm. IPD-TM) 416/2022].
1