Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.22 seconds)
Aravind Laboratories vs V.A. Samy Chemical Works on 8 July, 1986 cites

Aravind Laboratories vs V. Annamalai Chettiar on 9 April, 1980

20. In para 4 of the plaint it is stated that all the 24 types of products of the plaintiff are known -in the market by their trade mark "EYETEX" registered as early as 1946 under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, renewed from time to time currently valid under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The name 'Eye Tex' has become their special distinctive trade mark identity for all their products. This is also reflected in the judgment of this Court reported in Aravind Laboratories v. Annamalai Chettlar, (1981) 1 Mad LJ 75 : (AIR 1981 NOC 13). The above said allegation is denied by the defendant in para 4 of the written statement. It is stated in the written statement that no matter has been placed to show that the plaintiff is currently holding the proprietorship of the trade mark EYETEX. P.W. 1 has spoken to the fact that the trade mark EYETEX has been registered. Ex. P- 1 is the original trade mark registration certificate issued in favour of P. K. Vasudevan, trading as Pushpavanam Stores, 580 Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Madras, stating that the trade mark "EYETEX" had been registered in his name and the registration number is given as 124824. Ex. P 2 is the plaintiffs carton Eyetex, under which the plaintiff is trading. Ex. P-11 dated 294-1982, is the deed of partnership entered into between (1) A. V. Srinivasan,(2) Smt. Bhooma Devanathan,(3) Suit. Shanti Rajgopal and (4) Aravind Laboratories Private Limited, whereby all the above said persons have constituted themselves into a partnership to continue the business of the plaintif viz. to manufacture and sell the products such as "Eyetex7, "Bindi" etc. Ex. P 11 is signed by all the partners. Ex. P-12 is the certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks, dated 11-9-1982, mentioning the plaintiffs trade mark number as 124824 and the same had been renewed for a period of 7 years in favour of the plaintiff from 11-91982. In Ex. P-12 it is also mentioned that the renewal was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 838. Ex. P-13 is the certificate of registration No. 303087, dated 28-10-1978, showing the registration of the trade mark Eyetex in the names of A. V. Srinivasan, Bhooma Devanathan and Shanti Rajgopal, trading as Aravind Laboratories at No. 3, Chakrapani Street, Madras 600033 in respect of perfumery; perfumery compounds; cosmetic preparations known as kajal or kanmai; bindi, bindi pencils; kumkum, etc. Ex. P-14, dated 19-2-1982, is the certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks stating that the registration trade mark No. 303087 had been renewed for a period of 7 years from 19-2-1982, and the said renewal was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 809. Ex. P-15, dated 26-3-1976 is the certificate issued by -the Registrar of Trade Mark in respect of the registration of the Trade Mark "Eyetex" in Tamil. Ex. P 16, dated 26-3-1976, is the certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks in respect of the trade mark Eyetex in Malayalam. Ex. P-17, is the certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks showing Registration of Trade Mark No, 296915 of the plaintiff which has been renewed for a period of seven years from 14-6-4981 and the same was advertised in the trade Mark Journal No. 785. Ex. P-18 is the certificate issued' by the Registrar of Trade Marks showing the Registration of Trade Mark No. 296914 of the plaintiff has been renewed for a period of seven years from 146-1981 and the same was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 785. Ex. P-19, dated 26-3-1976, is the certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks for Registration of trade marks Eyetex in Telugu under 296913. Ex. P-20 is the certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks showing that the Registration of Trade Mark No. 296913 has been renewed for a period of seven years from 14-6-1981, and the same was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 785. Ex. P-22, dated 26-3-1976, is the certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of the trade mark Eyetex in Hindi under No. 296910. Ex. P-21 is the certificate, issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks showing that the registration of trade mark No. 296910 has been renewed for a period of seven years from 14-6-1981 and the renewal was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 785. Ex. P-23 is the certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks, dated 26-3-1976, showing the registration of trade mark Eyetex in Telugu as per registration No. 296909 Ex. P24 is the renewal of certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks showing that the Registration of Trade Mark No. 296909 has been renewed for a period of seven years from 14-6-1981 and the same was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 785. The above said certificates of registration and the subsequent renewals in respect of the trade mark Eyetex are produced and spoken to by P.W. 1. No evidence contra has been let in by the defendant. Hence the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade mark Eyetex in the above said languages and the carton marked as Ex. P-2 stands proved. Hence on Issue No. 2 1 find that the trade mark Eyetex has been registered in the name of the plaintiff under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Lakshmi Narayan Karva And Ors. vs Satyanarayan Khubchand Karva on 11 July, 1974

In view of the principles laid down in the' above decisions we cannot place the registered trade mark Eyetex along with the defendant's mark "Rani Eyevix" and the figures adopted in the carton side by side and then proceed to ascertain the difference in features and come to the conclusion as to whether there is a possibility of deception. The contention of the defendant that such a procedure should be adopted in this case will have to be negative in view of the principles laid down in the above decisions. What we have to consider is the overall aspects placing ourselves in the place of unwary purchaser. The prefix "Rani" to the defendant's mark is made in small letters which will not catch the eye of an unwary purchaser. So also the facial lines found in the defendant's mark on the carton will not readily catch the eye of an unwary purchaser. So far as the distinction in the cap by providing a crown will not attract the purchaser because it goes inside the carton. There is a phonetic similarity between "Eyetex" and "Eyevix". The design of the carton and the colours adopted also show that a deception is possible. No doubt there is difference in size of letters and the purchaser is not likely to remember the size of the letters. So far as the difference in the eye brows there is a difference in marks which~ cannot be remembered by the purchaser, If we consider the overall aspects, as pointed. out in the above decisions, it is clear that there is a phonetic similarity and other similarities which will likelv deceive an unwary purchaser. The dissimfliarity pointed out are not likely to be remembered by an unwary purchaser. Under the circumstances I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the defendant's carton "Rani 'Eyevix" is an infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade mark Eyetex.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - A Varadarajan - Full Document

Ciba Ltd. vs M. Ramalingam And S. Subramaniam ... on 12 March, 1957

In the case reported in Ciba Ltd. v. M. Ramalingam, it has been held that the granting of relief under Section 46 of Trade Marks Act, 1940 is a discretionary relief and the Legislature has not laid down any period, of limitation for making an application under Section 46. The question of delay in (fie making of the application must be approached from this point of view whether the applicant stood by and thereby caused substantial injury to the respondent and the injury was so substantial that, that injury would outweigh the interest of the public which the Court must consider where a trade mark is likely to deceive.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 41 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next