Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.34 seconds)
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Samvara Buildtech Private Limited & ... on 29 March, 2023
cites
Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Asus Technology Pvt Ltd & Ors on 28 May, 2019
"43. We also find merit in the appellant's contention that a party,
that has obtained the registration of a trademark on the basis of
certain representation and assertions made before the Trade Marks
Registry, would be disentitled for any equitable relief by pleading to
the contrary. The learned Single Judge had referred to the decision
in the case of Telecare Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asus Technology
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) holding that after grant of registration neither the
Examination Report nor the plaintiff's reply would be relevant. We
are unable to agree with the said view. In that case, the Court had
also reasoned that that there is no estoppel against statute. Clearly,
there is no cavil with the said proposition; however, the said
principle has no application in the facts of the present case. A party
that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark
and obtains a registration on the basis of that assertion, is not to be
entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the
cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar. It is
settled law that a person is not permitted to approbate and
reprobate. A party making contrary assertions is not entitled to any
equitable relief.
Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani & Anr. on 13 October, 2022
16. The learned Single Judge observed that while considering the
claim of exclusivity to the word 'VASUNDHRA', the claim made by
the Plaintiff before the Registrar of Trade Marks, though may not act
as an estoppel, but would be a relevant consideration and since the
Plaintiff had sought to distinguish other cited marks 'VASUNDHRA'
by contending that the mark has to be considered as a whole, Plaintiff
cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Pertinent it is to
mention that against the said order declining the relief of injunction,
Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Division Bench and the prima facie
view of the learned Single Judge was upheld and the Division Bench
in Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani and
Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3370, held as follows:-
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing ... on 23 October, 2007
27. The matter was carried in appeal by the Plaintiff in FAO (OS)
62/2008, reported as Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-
Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors., 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 2786 and the Division Bench of this Court upheld the
judgment of the learned Single Judge and observed as follows:
United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals ... on 18 May, 2012
17 (device) in Class 43 were cited, Plaintiffs have stated that the
cited marks were different conceptually, structurally and
visually since the marks have to be seen as a whole, without
dissection and relied on the judgment of this Court in United
Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
& Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2942. Therefore, Plaintiffs are
estopped from claiming monopoly over the word mark
CENTRAL PARK and/or seeking a restraint against the
Defendants in respect thereof. It is trite that a proprietor cannot
take inconsistent stands before the Trade Marks Registry and
the Courts and on this ground alone injunctions have been
refused by the Courts in several matters.
Sk Sachdeva & Anr. vs Shri Educare Limited & Anr. on 25 January, 2016
Reliance was placed on
the judgments in S.K. Sachdeva and Another v. Shri Educare
Limited and Another, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6708, Mankind
Pharma Ltd. v. Chandra Mani Tiwari & Anr., 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 9678, Poly Medicure Limited v. Polybond India
Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11967 and Teleecare Network
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed by:KAMAL
KUMAR CS(COMM) 189/2017 Page 5 of 30
Location:
Signing Date:03.04.2023
15:29:47
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2230
India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2019
SCC OnLine Del 8739.
The Registrar Of Trade Marks vs Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd on 15 April, 1955
13. It is not in dispute that Plaintiff No. 1 is the registered
proprietor of the label mark and its formatives, as
mentioned above. It is an admitted position that Plaintiff No.1 does
not hold registration in 'CENTRAL PARK' word mark per se.
Section 17 of the Act provides that where a trademark consists of
several matters, its registration shall confer on the proprietor exclusive
right to use of the trademark taken as a whole and shall not confer any
exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the
trademark so registered. [Ref. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd. (supra)].
Vardhman Buildtech Pvt Ltd & Ors vs Vardhman Properties Ltd on 17 August, 2016
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2230
(D) Plaintiffs have wrongly averred and claimed that Defendants
have adopted and imitated the mark of the Plaintiffs, while not
disclosing that Plaintiffs have registration only in the label
marks and not in CENTRAL PARK/Central Park word marks
per se. Plaintiffs have, in fact, never applied for registration of
the word mark and therefore, cannot seek indirectly what they
cannot seek or be granted directly. It is trite that registration of a
label mark does not give exclusivity of use over any word(s)
contained therein. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra
Rakhit Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 558 and on the judgment of this
Court in Vardhman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Vardhman
Properties Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4738.
Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. vs Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 19 February, 2014
(E) The expression 'CENTRAL PARK' is comprised of 2 separate
words in English language and are generic or at best descriptive
and cannot be monopolized and perhaps for this reason, till date
Plaintiffs have not even applied for registration of the word
mark, without any suffix or prefix. As per the settled law,
generic words are given the lowest protection. Reliance was
placed on India Habitat Centre v. Sunita Aeren and Ors.,
MANU/DE/0830/2008; Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. v.
Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 768
and Ultratech Cement Limited and Another v. Dalmia Cement
Bharat Limited, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 3574.