Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.59 seconds)Section 2 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 6 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S.N.Ranga Rao & Sons vs M/S.Shree Balaji Associates on 4 January, 2013
He also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in N.Ranga Rao & Sons v. Shree Balaji Associates, 2018
SCC Online Mad 13537, particularly paragraphs 17, 21, 22, 25 and
27 to 30, for the proposition that the non-user of a trade mark
should not be allowed to monopolize the mark.
Discussion, analysis and conclusions
N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996
(ii) N.R.Dongre and Others v. Whirlpool
Corporation and another, (1996) 5 SCC 714, particularly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/25
8
paragraph 15 thereof.
Tata Sons Ltd. vs Manoj Dodia & Ors. on 28 March, 2011
(iii) Tata Sons Ltd. v. Manoj Dodia & Others, 2011
SCC Online Del 1520.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha vs M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited on 14 December, 2017
In
support of these submissions, learned counsel referred to and
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Toyota
Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited and others,
(2018) 2 SCC 1, particularly paragraphs 34 and 38-40 thereof,
where the Supreme Court concluded that the trade mark 'Prius'
did not enjoy sufficient recognition in India to qualify as well-
known.
Section 47 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
1