Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.31 seconds)THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
Section 16 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
H&M; Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr vs Hm Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 31 May, 2018
48. It must be stated here that the learned senior counsel for the
appellants had relied upon a letter dated June 23, 2011 from the attorneys of
SONA BLW Präzisionsschmiede GmbH to the Trade Marks Registry, in
reply to objections raised by the Trade Marks Registry that the Trade Mark
'SONA BLW' is devoid of any distinctive character and that there are
similar marks already on the Register. They would submit that there is a
clear admission therein that all the cited marks by the Registry share the
word 'SONA' and still peacefully co-exist on the Register without
incidence of any confusion or deception. They have also referred to the
judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in S. K. Sachdeva (supra)
and Raman Kwatra (supra), in an attempt to distinguish the judgments in
the cases of Telecare Network (supra) and H&M (supra) which find
mention in the impugned judgment. It must be stated at this juncture that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH FAO(OS) (COMM) 40/2023 Page 31 of 47
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:17.04.2023
14:25:55
2023:DHC:2572-DB
the correspondence dated June 23, 2011, was not available before the
learned Single Judge. The findings of the impugned judgment that the
correspondence of the respondents with the Trade Marks Registry is not
material for adjudication, has been made with respect to the
correspondence of the respondent No.2 with the Trade Marks Registry
dated November 21, 2008. However, even with regard to the
correspondence dated June 23, 2011, we find ourselves in agreement with
the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. This we say so, as the
correspondence on which the reliance has been placed by the appellants is
exchanged between the German company SONA BLW Präzisionsschmiede
GmbH and the Trade Marks Registry, before the Trade Mark 'SONA
BLW' was assigned to the respondent No.1 and of which a separate
registration has been taken by the respondent No.1 in India. Surely, the
correspondence dated June 23, 2011 relied upon by the appellant is not
emanating from the respondent No.1and as such the said letter cannot act as
an estoppel against the respondent No.1.
Sona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd vs Sonae Ev Private Limited on 2 August, 2022
67. In the present case, the plaintiffs have registration in their
favour, of which the word "SONA" is a predominant part. It has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH FAO(OS) (COMM) 40/2023 Page 40 of 47
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:17.04.2023
14:25:55
2023:DHC:2572-DB
registrations in the word mark "SONA BLW" as well. Applying
the ratio of M/s. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd (supra), this
Court in its judgment dated 02.08.2022 passed in CS(COMM)
383/2022, titled Sona BLW Precision Forgings Ltd. v. Sonae EV
Private Limited, has held that "SONA" forms a dominant part of
the plaintiffs‟ Trade Mark, thus is entitled to protection. It is also
of import that the word "SONA" otherwise cannot be said to be
descriptive or even suggestive of the goods in which the plaintiff
deals in. Further, the reason given by the defendants for adoption
of the word „SONA‟ in its corporate name does not impress me,
as has been explained hereinafter."
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) Byl.Rs. ... vs Govt. Of Karnataka And Anr on 29 April, 1991
15. It is the case of the appellants as has been contended by Dr. Singhvi,
Mr. Nayar and Ms. Luthra and Mr. Krishnan that once the learned Single
Judge has held that the respondents are guilty of concealment and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH FAO(OS) (COMM) 40/2023 Page 10 of 47
DASTIDAR
Signing Date:17.04.2023
14:25:55
2023:DHC:2572-DB
suppression of material facts, he could not have awarded the respondents
with an injunction restraining the appellants from using the word 'SONA',
more so when by virtue of the disclaimer put in Trade Mark bearing
Registration No. 1707890, the respondents did not have any exclusive right
for the word „SONA‟. The impugned order is in the teeth of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of
India Limited, (2008) 12 SCC 481 and of this Court in Hillcrest Realty Sdn
Bhd v. Hotel Queen Road Private Limited, (2009) SCC OnLine Del 4336
DB as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ram Parshottam Mittal v.
Hillcrest Realty Sdn Bhd, (2009) 8 SCC 709, and G Narayanaswamy
Reddy and Anr. v. Govt. of Karnataka and Anr., (1991) 3 SCC 26.
Cadbury India Limited And Ors. vs Neeraj Food Products on 25 May, 2007
27. Mr. Sibal has relied upon the decision of this Court in Cadbury India
Limited v. Neeraj Food Products , 142 (2007) DLT 724 wherein the Court
was faced with a similar allegation of alleged suppression of a disclaimer,
in two of the three registrations in favour of the plaintiff therein, whereby
no exclusive use of the word was conferred. This Court, nevertheless
refused to non-suit the plaintiff on the basis of concealment of material
facts, on the ground that the plaintiff had a third registration in respect of
which there was no disclaimer.
Research In Motion Limited vs Data Infosys Limited on 12 January, 2012
(v) Research In Motion Limited (supra)
M/S Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Asus Technology Pvt Ltd & Ors on 28 May, 2019
It was in this situation
that this Court while stating that there is no dispute with the proposition laid
down in Telecare Network (supra) that there can be no estoppel against a
statute, held that the said proposition would not be applicable in the facts of
that case. As such, the said judgment is also distinguishable.