Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 61 (0.31 seconds)Section 46 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri Bose has contended that it was well settled that if the defendant acts fraudulently with the knowledge that he is violating the plaintiff's rights, the essential elements of estoppel are lacking and in such a case the protection of the plaintiff's rights by injunctive relief never is properly denied. The doctrine of estoppel could only be invoked to promote fair dealings. In any event the defense of acquiescence is not available to the defendant/appellant in the instant case for it is well settled that the acquiescence must be such as to lead to the inference of a licence sufficient to create a new right in the defendant. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on M/s. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. India Stationery Products Co., (supra) and M/s. Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. .
Section 10 in The Delhi High Court Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
American Home Products Corporation vs Mac Laboratories Private Limited And ... on 30 September, 1985
For the foregoing reasons, while it is apparent that the appellants were using the registered trade marks, without there being any agreement to use the same. On the goods imported from appellant/respondent No. 2 as well as on their own products manufactured in India, however, with the knowledge and consent of at least plaintiff/respondent No. 2, there was not even resemblance or control of the proprietor of the trade marks, the imported goods as well as the goods which were being produced in India had no relation whatsoever with the proprietor of the trade mark. The appellant is using a mark which is the same as the plaintiff's registered trade mark. No distinction is even pleaded by the appellant. Conditions enumerated in Gujarat Bottling Company's case (supra) and American Home Remedies' case (supra), for the purpose of keeping the trade mark intact, so that user by the appellant in India should ensure to the benefit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, have not been satisfied for want of distinctiveness of the trade mark in relation to the goods. The user would neither under the Trade Marks Act under the common law, ensure to the benefit of plaintiff/respondent No. 1. This would relate to the registered trade mark of device and the word "synthes".