Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.96 seconds)
Unknown vs M/S.Sujatha Match Works on 12 July, 2024 cites

Mahendra T.Thakkar vs N. Ranga Rao & Sons Pvt. Ltd on 28 April, 2018

In the earlier cases filed by the plaintiff, this Court passed order, which shows that Trade mark Registry specifically declared that the mark CYCLE is well known and for which, the learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendra T.Thakkar and another Vs. N. Ranga Rao & Sons Pvt. Ltd., dated 25.10.2019 in A.Nos.7501 and 7502 of 2018 in C.S.No.296 of 2018 wherein, this Court has held:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

T.V. Venogopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr on 3 March, 2011

j.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of T.V. Venugopal vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd & Anr [(2011) 4 SCC 85] protected the rights vested with the Respondent therein with respect to the mark "Eenadu" that was used by the Appellant and Respondents therein with respect to completely different set of goods i.e, with respect to Agarbathies and 68/75 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.310 of 2014 Newspapers Publications respectively. The Court held that "User of similar word by a competitor, coupled with dishonest intention and bad faith, would empower a Court to restrain such user/misuser to do equitable justice to the aggrieved party." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has protected the mark, "Eenadu" of the Respondent/Plaintiff, predominantly in view of the "extraordinary reputation and goodwill" of their mark and deliberate misrepresentation and bad faith of the Appellants in adopting a similar mark for their business. In the present case, the well known mark CYCLE transcends the divide of classifications and therefore, any use of the mark in any goods/services is bound to be restrained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 74 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Blue Hill Logistics Private Ltd vs Ashok Leyland Limited on 5 May, 2011

(8) Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Assam Roofing Ltd. and Ors. Vs. JSB Cements LLP and Ors. [G.A.No.1412 of 2015 and C.S.No.106 of 2015 dated 09.12.2015) (9) Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Blue Hill Logistics Private Ltd. Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Ors. [O.S.A. Nos.7 and 8 of 2011 dated 05.05.2011].
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 24 - R Banumathi - Full Document

N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Limited vs Sriman Industries on 5 August, 2004

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. No.310 of 2014 b. In the case of N.Ranga Rao and sons Private Limited Vs. Sriman Industries, unreported judgment in C.S.No.260 of 2017 dated 04.11.2019, this Court, while deciding the question as to whether the Agarbathis and Benzoin (Sambrani) are allied and cognate, proceeded to restrain the defendants' use of the mark CYCLE in respect of Sambrani, holding that, "26. Admittedly, the Plaintiff has registered mark under Class 3 and have reputation not only to Aagarbathies but also pooja products....
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Honda Motor Company Limited vs Kewal Brothers And Anr. on 9 September, 1999

In the case of Honda Vs. Kewal Brothers, the Calcutta High Court states that the infringement must be from the date when defendant adopted the mark and not the date of the suit. Thus, 1995 must be date for the plaintiff to prove use, reputation or anything connected to the trade mark CYCLE. Except for the registrations, there is nothing on record to show the use since 1995. The concepts of use and registration are separate and divergent. Registration alone, devoid of actual use, does not hold value, whereas genuine use, even without registration, is considered valid.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next