Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.64 seconds)
Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt. ... vs Bhushan Oil & Fats Pvt. Ltd. on 22 September, 2022 cites

M/S Dabur India Ltd. vs M/S Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd. on 6 October, 2009

In Dabur v. Alka (supra), this Court also observed that Section 28(3) of the Act does not prohibit a suit for infringement if the mark of the Defendant is also registered. Section 28(1), by a plain reading, vests in the registered proprietor of the trademark, the exclusive right to use the mark in any manner provided by the Act. Thus, the exclusive right vested in the registered proprietor is subject to the other provisions of the Act and to the registration being valid. As a corollary, if there is another provision in the Act not vesting such an exclusive right in the registered proprietor or if the registration is invalid, such exclusive right would not vest in the registered proprietor of the mark. It was further observed that the words 'the exclusive right to the use of any of those trademarks' in Section 28(3) would have to take colour from the exclusive right conferred under Section 28(1) which would not accrue if the registration is invalid.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

The Singer Company Limited & Anr vs M/S Chetan Machine Tools And Ors on 26 February, 2009

In Singer Company Limited (Supra), Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement against the Defendants, who in response filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. One of the grounds raised by the Defendants was that no suit for infringement is maintainable against the Defendants in view of Section 30(2)(e) of the Act. Examining the provisions of Section 124 of the Act, Court was of the prima facie view that the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold and the suit can lie though it may have to be stayed depending upon the defence raised by the Defendants.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - R Sharma - Full Document
1   2 Next