Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Orient Papers Industries Ltd vs Jayanta Lamp Industries Pve. Ltd on 25 April, 2011 cites

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha vs M/S. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills on 25 February, 2009

We have already pointed out that the law relating to passing off enables a prior user of a trademark to get an order of injunction restraining a subsequent user of the same name in respect of a different type of business under certain circumstances (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha) (supra)), but it does not approve grant of injunction against a prior user of the same name at the instance of a subsequent user in respect of a different business when apart from trade name, no other distinctive features of the product of the subsequent user has been alleged to have been adopted by the prior user.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 20 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Vishnudas Kishindas Zarda Factory vs The Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. on 11 October, 1990

In the case of Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishandas, Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Hyderabad and another reported in AIR 1996 SC 2275, the respondent Company got registration of its brand name "charminar" under the broad classification 'manufactured tobacco'. According to the respondent, so long such registration remained operative, the respondent company was entitled to claim exclusive use of the said brand name in respect of articles made of tobacco coming under the said broad classification 'manufactured tobacco'. Precisely for the said reason, when the appellant made application for registration of quiwam and zarda under the same brand name "charminar", such prayer of registration was not allowed. The appellant, therefore, made application for rectification of the registration made in favour of the respondent company so that the said registration is limited only in respect of the articles being manufactured and marketed by the respondent company, namely, cigarettes. Such prayer was granted but on appeal the High Court set aside the order of rectification. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by holding that the rectification of the registration by limiting or confining the registration of trade mark of the Respondent Company to particular goods, namely, cigarettes, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not be held as illegal or unjustified. By relying upon the said decision, Mr. Chatterjee tried to convince us that his client, although a subsequent user of the trade name "orient", is entitled to an order of injunction in respect of the particular item of manufacture, viz. lamp against the defendant, the prior user of the trade name "orient".
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1