Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.30 seconds)
Vardhman Properties Ltd vs M/S Vardhman Realtech Pvt Ltd & Ors on 31 May, 2016 cites

Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004

20. The argument by the defendant that the plaintiff could have acquainted itself about its (the defendant's existence) in support of which reliance is placed upon certain advertisements placed by both parties in the same journal is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the standard for evaluating assessment by a plaintiff alleging infringement is quite different from that in relation to a passing-off action. Being possessor of a statutory right, the Courts have recognized that registered proprietors have some flexibility in assessing the level of threat perceived from infringers and are not expected to fight each and every alleged infringement or violation of their rights. It would be useful here to articulate the decision of the Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene v. Sudhir Bhatia, 2004 (3) SCC 90, where it was held that in actions for injunction, based on infringement of registered trademarks, the Courts would be entirely wrong in refusing the relief merely on the basis of delay and laches. Acquisence would classically arise where the registered proprietor knows his rights and also knows that the infringer is ignorant of them and does something to encourage infringer's misapprehension with the result that infringement continues upon such mistaken belief and the infringer worsens his position. However, in this case, the defendant is CS(OS) 3378/2014 and connected matter Page 29 of 30 not urging lack of knowledge of plaintiff's mark; rather what is put forward is that it continued to advertise despite the plaintiff's statutory rights. Acquiescence prima facie does not arise in such situation because there is nothing showing the plaintiff's action, overt or otherwise encouraging defendant to continue using the mark.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 411 - Full Document

Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Sudhir Bhatia on 4 November, 2015

21. On a consideration of all the above aspects, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunctive relief sought for. According to the holding in Midas Hygiene (supra), once such a test is established in infringement actions, the Courts ordinarily should not withhold relief. In these circumstances, the applications for injunction are allowed. The defendant is hereby restrained from using the mark and word "VARDHMAN" in relation to their trade or corporate name or the services offered by it or on its behalf by anyone else, so as to indicate a linkage with the plaintiff's corporate name or trademark. IA 7674/2009 is allowed in the above terms, in this view no orders are called for in IA 6139/2008."
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 17 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next