Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.71 seconds)Section 28 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
P.M. Diesels vs S.M. Diesels on 21 February, 1994
Reference may also be made to the decision in P.M. Diesels Ltd. Vs. S.M. Diesels; reported in 53 (1994) Delhi Law Times 742. It was held in those decision that if the plaintiff is a proprietor of the registered trade mark, the same gives to the proprietor of the registered trade mark the exclusive right to use the trade mark with relation to goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered under the provisions of Section 28 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. It was also held that such statutory right cannot be lost merely on the question of principles of delay, laches or acquiescence. It was also held that in general mere delay after knowledge of infringement does not deprive the registered proprietor of a trade mark of his statutory rights or of the appropriate remedy for the enforcement of those rights so long as the said delay is not an inordinate delay. In my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
Section 17 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories; , and the decision in Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs. Satya Deo Gupta; .
Section 81 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Prakash Roadline Ltd. vs Prakash Parcel Service (P) Ltd. on 1 March, 1992
In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Prakash Road line Ltd. Vs. Prakash Parcel Service (P) Ltd.; reported in 1992(2) Arbitration Law Reporter page 174.
1