Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors on 29 August, 2006
25. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant further relied on the decision relied on the decision reported in (Ramdev Food Products Pvt Ltd vs. Arvindhbhai Rambhai Patel and others) 2006 8 SCC 726 for the proposition that ordinarily two persons are not entitled to use the same trade mark, unless there exists an express licence in that behalf. Further, the permitted user of the name under Memorandum of Understanding did not imply that they use the trade mark. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court, after pointing out the Memorandum of Understanding, held that what was given in the Memorandum of Understanding was that the first respondent can only sell the product of the appellant, but the respondent however was not restrained from manufacturing the same in their factory and therefore, they started the same under the brand name 'Swad' and they can even use the same in retail outlet for the purpose of promoting their own product, but prima facie, they cannot use the mark registered in the name of the appellant company. In the present case on hand, it is the first respondent who permitted the appellant to represent them in India for the purpose of downlinking the programme designed and prepared by them after getting it registered in India to suit the local laws. In fact, the first respondent alone provided funds for the appellant for the purpose of telecasting their television channel in India. Under those circumstances, the appellant cannot complain of any infringement of his trademark by the first respondent and the decision relied on by the senior counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.
Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. & Anr vs Best Media Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd on 11 November, 2009
26. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in (Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., and another vs. Best Media Associates (India) Private Limited) 2010 1 Bombay CR 839 for the proposition that Section 34-A pertains to use of the mark in India and not anywhere in the World. This decision will not help the appellant because it is clearly proved by the first respondent that the trade mark was used in India even before it was registered at the instance of the appellant.
Adhunik Steels Ltd vs Orissa Manganese And Minerals Pvt. Ltd on 10 July, 2007
27. Lastly, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant relied on the decisoin reported in (Adhunik Steels Limited vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals Private Limited) (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 125 for the proposition that well recognised principles applicable for general power to grant interim relief, including specific injunctive relief, under Order 39 of Civil Procedure Code and Specific Relief Act, will be applicable to exercise powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that in respect of an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, whatever is applicable under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC will also be applied. In that particular facts and circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court held that since the contract was terminated, there will be a limited injunction restraining the respondent not to enter into any contract for mining for lifting ofminerals with ano other entity until the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. The Honourable Supreme Court also held that there is no justification in preventing OMM Private Limited from carrying on the mining operation by itself as they got a mining lease and subject to any award thatmay be passed by the arbitrator on the effect of the contract,it had entered into with the respondent, it has the right to mine and lift the minerals therefrom. This decision will also not be of any help to the appellant in the present case inasmuch as the contract was duly terminated by the first respondent after discussion with the appellant and therefore, once the contract is terminated, the appellant has no vested right to claim any relief against the first respondent.
Section 16 in The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Hardie Trading Ltd. And Anr vs Addisons Paint And Chemicals Ltd on 12 September, 2003
22. Though a feeble attempt was made by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the defence of prior user pleaded by the first respondent is untenable inasmuch as the first respondent is not the exclusive user of the telecast right in India, it has to be pointed out that even in the year 2003, the erstwhile representative of the first respondent was receiving the channel Daystar. Therefore, the presence of Daystar in India existed even in the year 2003. The appellant, in his e-mail dated 17.12.2004 also stated that "efforts should be taken to promote Daystar". Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to contend that Daystar was not used in India prior to the entering into agreement between the appellant and the first respondent. The learned single Judge also pointed out various other evidence to hold that Daystar was in existence in India long prior to the registration by the appellant in India. The learned singleJudge also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Hardia Trading Limited vs. Addisons Paint & ChemicalsLimited) 2003 11 SCC 92 for the proposition that "it is well established that manufacturer was the first to use the device as a trade mark and he alone can claim property over the name as a mark. Based on the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the first respondent alone is the owner and can enjoy the telecast rights of Daystar and we do not find any justification to interfere with such a finding given by the learned single Judge.