Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.36 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
In the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Vs Navaratna
Pharmaceutical, AIR 1965 SC Page 980 at page 989 and 990, it was
held as under :
Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
National Bell Co. & Anr vs Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr on 18 March, 1970
―22. As far as the Appellant's argument that the
word MOLA is common to the trade and that variants
of MOLA are available in the market, we find that
the appellant has not been able to prima facie prove
that the said ‗infringers' had significant business
turnover or they posed a threat to plaintiff's
distinctiveness. In fact, we are of the view that the
respondent/plaintiff is not expected to sue all small
type infringers who may not be affecting
respondent/plaintiff's business. The Supreme Court
in National Bell vs. Metal Goods, AIR 1971 SC 898
has held that a proprietor of a trademark need not
take action against infringement which do not cause
prejudice to its distinctiveness.
Mrs. Zena Mary Rodgers vs Mr. Troy Steven Rodgers And Ors. on 6 February, 2004
In the case of Bajaj Electrical Limited, Bombay Vs. Metals
& Allied Products, Bombay, AIR 1988 Bom 167, the Bombay High
Court discussed the case of Rodgers Vs. Rodgers as also Parker Knoll in
para 7 which reads as under :
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
In
Parle Products (f) Ltd. v. J. P. & Co. Mysore. :
MANU/SC/0412/1972 the Supreme Court took the same
view.‖
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
In the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ruston and
Hornby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co., MANU/SC/0304/1969.
The High Court, in appeal, held that the offending trade mark infringed
the appellant's trade mark "Ruston", and restrained the respondent from
using the trade mark "Rustam", but further held that the use of the words
"Rustam India" was not an infringement of the registered trade mark, as
the appellant's goods were manufactured in England and not in India
and the suffix of the word "India" constituted a sufficient distinguishing
factor. The Supreme Court, white upholding the first part of the High
Court Judgment and reversing the second part, held that an infringement
of a registered trade mark takes place not merely by exact imitation but
by the use of a mark so nearly resembling the registered mark as to be
likely to deceive.