Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)Section 17 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Copyright Act, 1957
Bajaj Auto Ltd vs Tvs Motor Company Ltd on 16 September, 2009
9. Learned counsel for the respondent would further contend, by
placing reliance on the order of the Supreme Court in Bajaj Auto
Limited v. TVS Motor Company Limited5, that in cases relating to
trade marks, the Courts shall endeavour to dispose of the main suit itself
rather than deciding the interlocutory applications and the said rationale
in the Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court would equally apply to the
present CMA as well. It is further contended that as the Court below
found that there is no prima facie case made out by the appellant, the ex
parte interim injunction was vacated and therefore this Hon' ble Court
may dispose of this civil miscellaneous appeal by directing the Court
5
Civil Appeal No.6390 of 2009
10 cma_496_2020
CKR, J
below to dispose of the Original Suit itself within a specific timeframe as
may be set by this Court and his client is ready to cooperate with the
trial.
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
In the case on hand, while the descriptive words used though are
different, the first word TASTY being common in the products of both
appellant and respondent, and the second word being different, and
further the respondent's label on the pouches depict an image of a
woman, the differences are required to be viewed in the light of the
parameters/factors laid down by the Supreme Court as extracted in
paragraph 35 (c), (d) and (e) of Cadila Health Care Ltd (6 supra), and
also paragraph 29 of the judgment of Supreme Court in Kaviraj Pandit
(2 supra).
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Time Incorporated vs Lokesh Srivastava And Anr. on 3 January, 2005
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court
erred in observing that there is no prima facie case established by the
appellant in support of exclusive usage of the mark "TASTY GOLD" and
that it erred in observing that the mark "TASTY GOLD" is generic in
nature, by relying on the decision of Delhi High Court in Time
Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava1. Learned counsel further
contended that the learned Court below failed to notice the trademark in
the citation relied on by the respondent is "SUGAR FREE" and not "TASTY
GOLD".