Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
M/S Inter Ikea Systems Bv & Anr. vs Sham Murari & Ors. on 7 September, 2018
4 Ld. Counsel for plaintiff for relied upon the judgments passed by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as M/s Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
vs. M/s Abhay Enterprises & Others {CS (COMM) 1417/2016}
decided on 01.10.2018; Sandisk LLC vs. Raj Enterprises & Others
{CS (COMM) 990/2018 and IA No. 15226/2018} decided on
26.11.2018; Inter Ikea Systems B. V. & Others vs. Sham Murari &
Others {CS (COMM) 104/2018 and IAs No. 26029/2014 &
26030/2014} decided on 07.09.2018 and Louis Vuitton Malletier vs.
Kapil Pahuja & Others {CS (OS) 1320/2014} decided on 16.01.2018
to claim its relief in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.
5 Heard. Perused the records meticulously. I am of the considered view,
plaintiff is entitled to a decree in its favour and against the defendant
for the reasons stated as under.
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Kapil Pahuja & Ors on 16 January, 2018
4 Ld. Counsel for plaintiff for relied upon the judgments passed by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as M/s Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
vs. M/s Abhay Enterprises & Others {CS (COMM) 1417/2016}
decided on 01.10.2018; Sandisk LLC vs. Raj Enterprises & Others
{CS (COMM) 990/2018 and IA No. 15226/2018} decided on
26.11.2018; Inter Ikea Systems B. V. & Others vs. Sham Murari &
Others {CS (COMM) 104/2018 and IAs No. 26029/2014 &
26030/2014} decided on 07.09.2018 and Louis Vuitton Malletier vs.
Kapil Pahuja & Others {CS (OS) 1320/2014} decided on 16.01.2018
to claim its relief in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.
5 Heard. Perused the records meticulously. I am of the considered view,
plaintiff is entitled to a decree in its favour and against the defendant
for the reasons stated as under.
Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors vs Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. on 7 February, 2013
TM No. 141/2018 PUMA SE VS. REDON SPORTS/GANPATI SALES (INDIA) Page no. 5 of 10
6 It is useful herein to refer to the decision by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in "Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors Vs. Satya Ifra & Estates
Pvt. Ltd, MANU/DE/0511/2013" wherein the Hon'ble court has held
that:
The Heels vs Mr. V.K. Abrol And Anr. on 29 March, 2006
11.2 A reference to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
titled as "The Heels V. Mr. V. K. Abrol and Anr., CS (OS) No.
1385 of 2005 decided on 29.03.2006" would be profitable, wherein
the Hon'ble Court has held:
Sandisk Llc vs Raj Enterprises & Anr. on 26 November, 2018
4 Ld. Counsel for plaintiff for relied upon the judgments passed by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as M/s Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
vs. M/s Abhay Enterprises & Others {CS (COMM) 1417/2016}
decided on 01.10.2018; Sandisk LLC vs. Raj Enterprises & Others
{CS (COMM) 990/2018 and IA No. 15226/2018} decided on
26.11.2018; Inter Ikea Systems B. V. & Others vs. Sham Murari &
Others {CS (COMM) 104/2018 and IAs No. 26029/2014 &
26030/2014} decided on 07.09.2018 and Louis Vuitton Malletier vs.
Kapil Pahuja & Others {CS (OS) 1320/2014} decided on 16.01.2018
to claim its relief in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.
5 Heard. Perused the records meticulously. I am of the considered view,
plaintiff is entitled to a decree in its favour and against the defendant
for the reasons stated as under.
1