Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.67 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna
Pharmaceutical Laboratories (9 Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that:
Subhash Chand Bansal vs Khadim???S And Anr. on 22 August, 2012
In Subhash Chand Bansal vs. Khadim's and Others (10 Supra)
the Delhi High Court held that:
Ahmed Oomerbhoy And Anr. vs Shri Gautam Tank And Ors. on 20 December, 2007
In Ahmed Oomerbhoy & Another Vs. Gautam Tank & Others
(11 Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had explained the triple identity test
for grant of injunction as follows:
Intel Corporation vs Harpreet Singh & Ors on 7 February, 2018
8. The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the respondent -
plaintiff on this aspect in Intel Corporation Vs. Harpreet Singh and
others (19 Supra) delivered by the High Court of Delhi is pertaining to the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 wherein by placing reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Bengal Waterproof Limited Vs. Bombay
Waterproof Manufacturing Company and others 21, it was held that in a
suit for infringement of trade mark, the cause of action was a recurring
cause of action and the question of limitation would not arise. It was further
held that in view of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, the continuing action
would give rise to a fresh period of limitation. Every person who passes off
the goods as those of another would be committing an act of deceit and
wherever and whenever fresh deceitful act is committed, the person
deceived would naturally gets a fresh cause of action in his favour.
Infringement of a registered trade mark would also be a continuing wrong
so long as infringement continues. Therefore, whenever a new infringement
had taken place, the cause of action for filing a fresh suit would arise in
21
AIR 1997 SC 1398
12
favour of the plaintiff who is aggrieved by such fresh infringement of
trademark or fresh passing off actions alleged against the defendants. As
such, this court considers that the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the suit was barred by limitation does not hold any merit and
the same is liable to be rejected.
Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
V.Kumar vs R.Natarajan on 17 June, 2021
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that he
filed a caveat petition in the year 2017 itself before the Additional District
Judge, Rangareddy, but the suit was filed only in the year 2024, as such,
the same was barred as per the Limitation Act, 1963, which was opposed
by the learned counsel for the respondent and contended that it was a
continuous cause of action and as such, there was no limitation to file the
suit. The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellant on this
aspect in V.Kumar Vs. R.Natarajan delivered by the High Court of
Madras was pertaining to a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and
recovery of possession.
Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 21 August, 2009
Therefore, in our view, the decision in United
Biotech Pvt. Ltd (supra) does not aid the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the respondent."