Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 61 (0.42 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 28 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 124 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996
54. Relying on paras 4, 10 and 18 of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in N. R Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation47 and the judgment
of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Polson Ltd v. Polson Dairy
Ltd48, she submits that an action for passing off can lie even on the
basis of a mark which has lapsed.
Qrg Enterprises And Anr. vs Surendra Electricals And Ors. on 26 April, 2005
37. Without prejudice, Mr. Bansal pleads honest and concurrent
user and relies, for the purpose, on paras 29 and 32 of the judgment of
a learned Single Judge of this Court in QRG Enterprises v. Surendra
Electricals25, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in QRG
Enterprises v. Surendra Electricals26 .
Section 5 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Krbl Ltd vs Lal Mahal Ltd And Anr on 23 February, 2015
28. The plaintiff has, therefore, wrongly stated, in the plaint, that
the cause of action for instituting the suit arose in 2022. In fact, it
arose, at the very latest, in 2017, when the plaintiff had opposed
12 MANU/DE/0066/2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR CS(COMM) 130/2022 Page 14 of 54
Signing Date:30.12.2023
13:53:49
Defendant 1's GIRDHAR KHADI mark and Defendant 1 had, in its
counter statement, disclosed that the mark had been registered w.e.f.
2005 and was in use from 2001. For the proposition that the plaintiff
who thus misstates the date of accrual of course of action and tries to
justify institution of a belated suit cannot be entitled to any injunctive
relief, Mr. Bansal relies on para 14 of Vijay Kumar Ahuja v. Lalita
Ahuja13, para 18 of the judgment of the decision of a learned Single
Judge of this Court in KRBL Ltd v. Lal Mahal Ltd14, para 17 of the
judgment of the Division Bench in KRBL Ltd v. Lal Mahal Ltd12
which dismissed the appeal thereagainst and para 4 of Shri Gopal
Engg & Chemical Works v. POMX Laboratory15.