Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.30 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
A. Abdul Karim Sahib vs A. Shanmugha Mudaliar on 9 December, 1966
24. The Madras High Court in the case of A.
Abdul Karim Sahib vs. A. Shanmugha Mudaliar
(supra) has held that though there are certain
procedural differences in the suit seeking injunction
against passing off and the statutory law relating to
infringement of trademarks, however, the Madras
High Court in the above cited judgment held that in
substance and in effect, an action in passing off can
easily be telescoped into an action for infringement
and vice versa.
Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002
31. The litigation in these categories often
burden the Courts. Even on trivial issues, both the
parties to the suit often on account of abundant
precaution tend to file too many documents, lengthy
arguments are extended, voluminous documents are
produced and the pleadings are also unnecessarily
found lengthy. In such a scenario, if plaintiffs were to
be relegated to file independent suit that does not
only lead to multiplicity of proceedings, the valuable
time of the Court is also utilized to decide identical
issue under two separate suits. In my opinion, the
basic structure of suit which is one for passing off
would not in any way stand altered by the proposed
amendment. What is sought by way of proposed
amendment is to incorporate additional relief relating
to infringement. If in the opinion of the trial Court, it
was open to the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit and if that
was one of the reason which prompted the trial Court
30
to relegate the plaintiffs to file a separate suit, then
the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable
in the light of the principles laid by the Apex in the
case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu & Another
(supra) Therefore, I am of the view that the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sampath
Kumar vs. Ayyakannu & Another (supra) have to
be strictly implemented in such cases.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Anglo-Dutch, Colour & Varnish Works ... vs India Trading House on 8 April, 1976
He would further place reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the
case of Anglo Dutch Colour & Varnishing Works
Ltd. Vs. Indian Trading House (supra). Referring
10
to the Delhi High Court judgment which is on the
same line, he would contend that the Delhi High Court
in identical case held that even if the proposed
amendment introduces a new cause of action, that
may not in itself necessitate a fresh trial and that
cannot be a ground to refuse amendment as the suit
initially being one for passing off, by way of an
amendment would not have the effect of converting
the suit of one character into a suit of other character.
Flight Center Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs Flight Centre Limited & Anr. on 24 January, 2013
10. He has further placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case
of Flight Center Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Flight
Centre Limited & Anr. (supra). Referring to the said
judgment, he would contend that the Delhi High Court
held that subsequent registration of mark was only a
fact which fortifies plaintiffs' case and such an
amendment did not necessitate fresh summons.
Amendment is really in the nature of additional mode
of relief and not substantive in nature.
Columbia Sportswear Company vs Harish Footwear & Anr on 28 April, 2017
11. To buttress his arguments, he has also
placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Delhi
High Court in the case of Columbia Sportswear
Company vs. Harish Footwear and Ors. (supra)
which is on the same line.
S. Syed Mohideen vs P. Sulochana Bai on 17 March, 2015
He would conclude his
arguments by placing reliance on the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of S.Syed
Mohideen vs. P. Sulochana Bai (supra).
Usha International And Anr. vs Usha Television Limited on 19 March, 2002
9. Learned counsel would further place
reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in
the case of Usha International and Ors. Vs. Usha
Television Limited (supra). Placing reliance on the
said judgment, he would contend that the Delhi High
Court while considering the amendment of plaint
sought by plaintiff seeking leave to raise additional
grounds on infringement of trademark held that the
basic facts stated in the plaint covers the entire
11
controversy between the parties except the
registration of design of plaintiff and therefore, the
proposed amendment will not prejudice the
defendants in any manner even though it introduces a
new cause of action in the strict technical sense.