Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.34 seconds)
Itc Ltd vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank ... on 11 April, 2017 cites

Sou. Ramkuvar Madanlal Atale vs Madanlal Surajkaran Atale on 21 August, 1974

Although it has not been elaborated in the petition but in course of submission it is stated that the defendant no.1 is carrying on business in a town in Kerala and the documents annexed to the plaint would not show that the defendant has any business in Calcutta or has any presence in Calcutta. Although the revocation is not sought for on the ground of forum inconvenience presumably because in that case the applicant would be required to admit that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction but two decisions of this Court in Madanlal Jain vs. Madanlal & Ors. reported at AIR 1949 Cal 495 and Muttra Electric Supply vs. Gopal Saran reported at 59 CWN 419 dealing with the principles to be applied for revocation on the ground of forum inconvenience were cited.
Bombay High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Gold Seal Engineering Product Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Hindustan Manufacturers And Others on 9 September, 1991

In Gold Seal Engineering Product Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) as I have noticed earlier while summarising the submission of Mr. Mookherjee the issue was entirely different. The notice of motion for interim injunction in a composite suit based on three cause of action was dismissed on the ground that incorrect averments were made by the plaintiff relating to jurisdiction in respect of first two causes of action with the liberty to the plaintiff to take out fresh notice of motion if leave under Clause 14 were ultimately granted. In fact, grant of leave under Clause 14 of the letters patent was tendered when the said judgment was delivered and accordingly, liberty was given to the plaintiff to take out fresh notice of 15 motion in accordance with law after disposal of petition for leave under Clause 14 of Letters Patent on such cause of action, if any, as it may be maintainable in law.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

An overruled judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.Dyechem vs. Cadbury (India) Ltd. reported at (2000) 5 SCC 573, paragraphs 22, 43 to 54 were relied upon to impress upon this Court that when the Court is of the view that all the causes of action have not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Court may not permit the plaintiff to proceed with the suit and shall immediately revoke the leave and left the plaintiff to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 150 - M J Rao - Full Document

Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr. on 23 November, 2009

In Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited (supra), where the question of jurisdiction for a passing off suit, in which neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the court was considered. The plaintiff is at Singapore and the defendants in Hyderabad, and the suit is an action for passing off in which neither the plaintiff nor the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business within the local limits of Delhi.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 70 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S. J.N. Nichols (Vimto) Limited vs Rose & Thistle And Another on 2 September, 1993

Mr. Mookherjee learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in J.N. Nichols (Vimto) Limited versus Rose & Thistle and Another, reported at AIR 1994 Calcutta 43 and a Division Bench Judgement of the Delhi High Court in N.R. Dongre versus Whirlpool Corp. reported at 1996 PTC 16 for the proposition that use of the trade mark does not require that there has to be actual physical sale since it is well settled 6 that even mere advertisement without having even the existence of the goods can be said to be an "use" of the mark. Mr. Mookherjee has referred to the specific pleadings in the plaint that through the use of the trade mark, trade name and domain names, www.itcbank.com and www.itcbank.org, the Defendant No.1, through Defendant No.2, is offering services under the Plaintiff's trade mark/ trade name/house mark/corporate name, which could cause considerable commercial loss to the Plaintiff herein and cause irreparable dilution to its brand value both within and outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The said domain names registered by Defendant No.2 in two gTLDs in its name, is clearly intended to 'pass off' the banking services of the Defendant No.1 as that of the Plaintiff herein and have a free ride on its reputation and goodwill both within and outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The said domain names use the Plaintiff's trademark, trade name, domain name and corporate name without any authority from the Plaintiff. The registration of the aforementioned domain names, by Defendant No.2 in two gTLDs in its name is clearly an attempt to induce customers of the Plaintiff to believe that the domain names registered by the Defendant No.2 is that of the Plaintiff and/or associated in some manner with the Plaintiff's business/websites registered by the Plaintiff in its name. It is the intention of the Defendant No.1, executed through Defendant No.2, to piggyback on the reputation of the Plaintiff and make 7 illegal gains of its worldwide reputation and goodwill both within and outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 28 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

Mr. Mookherjee learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in J.N. Nichols (Vimto) Limited versus Rose & Thistle and Another, reported at AIR 1994 Calcutta 43 and a Division Bench Judgement of the Delhi High Court in N.R. Dongre versus Whirlpool Corp. reported at 1996 PTC 16 for the proposition that use of the trade mark does not require that there has to be actual physical sale since it is well settled 6 that even mere advertisement without having even the existence of the goods can be said to be an "use" of the mark. Mr. Mookherjee has referred to the specific pleadings in the plaint that through the use of the trade mark, trade name and domain names, www.itcbank.com and www.itcbank.org, the Defendant No.1, through Defendant No.2, is offering services under the Plaintiff's trade mark/ trade name/house mark/corporate name, which could cause considerable commercial loss to the Plaintiff herein and cause irreparable dilution to its brand value both within and outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The said domain names registered by Defendant No.2 in two gTLDs in its name, is clearly intended to 'pass off' the banking services of the Defendant No.1 as that of the Plaintiff herein and have a free ride on its reputation and goodwill both within and outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The said domain names use the Plaintiff's trademark, trade name, domain name and corporate name without any authority from the Plaintiff. The registration of the aforementioned domain names, by Defendant No.2 in two gTLDs in its name is clearly an attempt to induce customers of the Plaintiff to believe that the domain names registered by the Defendant No.2 is that of the Plaintiff and/or associated in some manner with the Plaintiff's business/websites registered by the Plaintiff in its name. It is the intention of the Defendant No.1, executed through Defendant No.2, to piggyback on the reputation of the Plaintiff and make 7 illegal gains of its worldwide reputation and goodwill both within and outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 347 - Full Document

P.M. Diesel Ltd. vs Patel Field Marshall Industries on 20 August, 2008

In P.M. Diesels Ltd. v. Patel Field Marshall Industries, (1998) PTC 260, the court held: "The jurisdiction of a Court does not depend upon the defence taken by a defendant and it is the allegations made in the plaint which decide the forum. The Court, while considering an application for grant of temporary injunction can, however, go into the question whether, prima facie, it has jurisdiction or not and for the said purpose not only the pleadings but the affidavits, documents and other material on record can be examined. Therefore, for the purpose of forming prima facie opinion, the Court can travel beyond what is adverted in the plaint".
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Godfrey Phillips (India) Limited vs I.T.C. Limited on 29 April, 2011

The defendant's challenge to the cause of action for passing off proceeds on the basis that even if the allegations in support of the relief of passing off are separated from the other pleadings and were to be seen to be a separate plaint altogether a suit on the basis of such claim could not have been entertained by this Court. Even if all the averments made 19 in support of the claim for infringement are ignored, obliterated and discarded from the plaint and the suit in so far as it relates to passing off is assessed, notwithstanding there being no averment in the plaint for the independent cause of action relating to passing off being carried to this Court, Clause 14 of the Letters Patent confers jurisdiction of this Court to consider at any stage of the suit as to whether such cause of action would have been joined to the cause of action for infringement. A Division Bench of this Court in Godfrey Phillips (India) Limited Vs. I.T.C. Limited reported at 2011(48) PTC 190 (Cal.) (DB) considered a similar objection and has dealt with this matter in Paragraph 27 of the said report which reads:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document
1   2 Next