Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.03 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 34 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt. ... on 6 July, 2015
57. Mr. Dayan Krishnan stressed the fact that the defendant's goods
were first supplied to OEMs, who used them in the vehicles which
rolled out of the assembly line. Thus, he says, there is no chance of
confusion at all. The submission ignores the jurisprudential contours
of the concept of ―confusion‖ in trade mark law. There is an
illuminating discussion of the concept in the judgment in Shree Nath
Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd v. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd12,
distilled, in the following passage, from Mc Carthy on Trademarks
and Unfair Competition, IV Edn:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 2 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Armasuisse vs The Trade Mark Registry & Anr. on 4 January, 2023
31. In a case where the plaintiff has obtained registration of its
mark improperly and the registration is ex facie objectionable, Mr.
Dayan Krishnan submits that the plaintiff would not be entitled to the
benefit of presumption of validity of the trademark under Section
31(1)3 of the Trademarks Act. For this purpose, he relies on para 158
of the judgment of this Bench in Armasuisse v. Trade Mark Registry4
and paras 13, 14 and 19 of the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench
of this Court in Lowenbrau AG v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd5. Mr. Dayan
Krishnan reiterates the objection, as contained in the reply filed by the
defendant, of the plaint being vitiated by suppression and
misstatement. He submits that the plaintiff has concealed from the
Court the registration obtained for the and marks, both
of which are identifiable with the defendant.