Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.25 seconds)Section 17 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
38. The High Court also considered the impact of Section 29(9) of
the Trade Marks Act, which was termed as an exception to
Page 26 of 38
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 18 20:55:28 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/98/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2024
undefined
the Anti-dissection Rule, inasmuch as, the provision talks of
comparison of a distinct and essential feature of the registered
trade mark. It was noted that it is a settled law that the
essential feature in trade mark has to be determined in the
facts and circumstances of each case. The identification of
the essential feature of a mark is a question of fact and
depends upon the judgment of the Court based on the
evidence led before it as regards usage of the trade mark.
Reference has been made to the decision of the Apex Court
in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma (supra) to note as
under:-
K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969
13. Mr. Harshit Tolia, the learned senior counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff, in rebuttal, would rely upon the
decisions in Amritdhara Pharmacy vs. Satya Deo Gupta (AIR
1963 SC 449); Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs.
Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AIR 1965 SC 980);
K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs. Shri Ambal & Co., Madras &
Anr. [(1969) 2 SCC 131]; Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila
Pharma [(2001) 5 SCC 73] to submit that as compared to the
legal position in the Pre-Act of 1999, phonetic similarity of
the Word Mark, which is distinctive element of the registered
trade mark has been given a statutory form and character by
insertion of sub-section(9) in Section 29 of the Trad Marks
Act, 1999. The submission is that when two words are
Page 10 of 38
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 18 20:55:27 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/98/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2024
undefined
phonetically similar and other characteristics of the words
used in the trade mark are identical, Section 29(9) will come
into play and the word mark 'UNISON' being distinctive
element of the registered trade mark, the defendant is liable
to be injuncted from use of the word 'UniSN' in its trade
mark, which is sought to be registered in Class 44.