Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.40 seconds)
International Business Machines ... vs Tivoli Gardens & Anr on 28 February, 2026 cites

Mahesh Gupta vs Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr on 8 August, 2022

19.4. The present dispute should be dealt with and decided under the 2002 Rules since the dispute arose in the year 2006. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Mahesh Gupta v. Registrar of Trademarks, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1750, wherein the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has categorically observed that the 2017 Rules would not impact pending proceedings initiated under the 2002 Rules.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - P M Singh - Full Document

Indo Shell Cast Private Limited, A ... vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Indo ... on 14 September, 2007

a. Ramya S. Moorthy v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5305 b. Royal Classic Mills Private Limited v. The Polo/ Lauren Company L. P. & Anr., CMA(TM)No.18 of 2025 c. Samsudeen A v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 6309 d. Mars Incorporated v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors., C.A.(COMM.IPDTM) 88/2024 Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 45/2025 Page 15 of 24 Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:28.02.2026 15:56:11 e. Purushottam Singhal v. Registrar of Trademarks, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1641 f. Coaster Shoes Company Private Limited vs. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2871 19.15.Further, by March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had been declared across the country and effective communication was severely hampered. Despite such difficult times, Respondent No. 1 had already started taking restorative steps towards prosecution of Opposition No. 235441 in January 2022 and by March 2022, had also filed their letter of reliance along with Interlocutory Petition. Hence, Respondent No. 1 has always acted in a diligent manner towards its opposition. 19.16.If the present appeal is allowed, the valuable rights of Respondent No. 1 would be severely prejudiced due to mistakes and / or callousness of the Respondent No. 1s' erstwhile counsel.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The European Union Represented By The ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 31 May, 2022

a. European Union v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1793 b. HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 627 19.18.The said opposition proceedings have been pending for the past 19 years and no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant if the subject matter of the opposition is decided on merits before the Registrar of Trademark in an expeditious manner. 19.19.It is also important to note that the Impugned Order was passed on 24.04.2025, and the Appellant waited for almost 4 months to institute the present Appeal on 05.08.2025. In the meanwhile, the Appellant has already filed their evidence affidavit in support of their application on 11.07.2025 and Respondent No. 1 have also complied with their evidence affidavit in support of Opposition on 11.08.2025.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - P M Singh - Full Document

Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2022

a. European Union v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1793 b. HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 627 19.18.The said opposition proceedings have been pending for the past 19 years and no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant if the subject matter of the opposition is decided on merits before the Registrar of Trademark in an expeditious manner. 19.19.It is also important to note that the Impugned Order was passed on 24.04.2025, and the Appellant waited for almost 4 months to institute the present Appeal on 05.08.2025. In the meanwhile, the Appellant has already filed their evidence affidavit in support of their application on 11.07.2025 and Respondent No. 1 have also complied with their evidence affidavit in support of Opposition on 11.08.2025.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 2 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Ramya S.Moorthy vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 10 August, 2023

a. Ramya S. Moorthy v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5305 b. Royal Classic Mills Private Limited v. The Polo/ Lauren Company L. P. & Anr., CMA(TM)No.18 of 2025 c. Samsudeen A v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 6309 d. Mars Incorporated v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors., C.A.(COMM.IPDTM) 88/2024 Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 45/2025 Page 15 of 24 Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:28.02.2026 15:56:11 e. Purushottam Singhal v. Registrar of Trademarks, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1641 f. Coaster Shoes Company Private Limited vs. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2871 19.15.Further, by March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had been declared across the country and effective communication was severely hampered. Despite such difficult times, Respondent No. 1 had already started taking restorative steps towards prosecution of Opposition No. 235441 in January 2022 and by March 2022, had also filed their letter of reliance along with Interlocutory Petition. Hence, Respondent No. 1 has always acted in a diligent manner towards its opposition. 19.16.If the present appeal is allowed, the valuable rights of Respondent No. 1 would be severely prejudiced due to mistakes and / or callousness of the Respondent No. 1s' erstwhile counsel.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document
1   2 Next