Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.30 seconds)Section 29 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Haldiram Bhujiawala And Anr vs Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar And Anr on 28 February, 2000
Paras 21 to 23 of the judgment of Apex Court in Haldiram Bhujiawala (supra) are also reproduced:-
Power Control Appliances vs Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd on 8 February, 1994
In M/s Power Control Appliances and Others Vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1994 (2) SCC 448. following observations are made in para-41, which is of relevance in the instant context:-
Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 6 May, 2004
In Satyam Infoway Ltd. Vs. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd., reported in 2004 (6) SCC 145, an issue arose with regard to use of word 'Sify' or 'Siffy' as a provider of Internet services. Observations made in paras 31 and 32 may conveniently be relied upon:-
Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd on 9 November, 2001
In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court as well as evidence adduced on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that violation of plaintiff appellant's registered trade mark by the defendants was clearly established. Plaintiff appellant is the prior user and its trademark is registered. The defendants had started its business only about 2 years prior to filing of suit. Claim of civil wrong was brought before the civil court, after efforts to persuade defendants to desist from violating law failed. Plea of acquiescence was also not established in view of the evidence led, inasmuch as the defendants started violating plaintiff's trademark only in 1983 and an objection to it within the period of limitation had been made whereafter suit was filed in 1985. In such circumstances, the finding of court below on Issue nos.2 and 3 cannot be sustained. The first point for determination framed in this appeal is, therefore, answered by holding that plaintiff appellant has established violation of its trademark and passing off goods by defendants and is thus entitled to the injunction prayed for in the suit. Defendants, consequently, are restraint from using plaintiff's registered trademark 'Panchhi Petha Store' or 'Panchhi' or any other deceptively similar trade names such as 'New Panchhi Petha Store', 'Famous Panchhi Petha Store' and 'Best Panchhi Petha Store' etc. It would, however, be open for the defendants to sell their product in any other trade name, which may be available to them, in accordance with law.