Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.61 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 129 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kamdhenu Ispat Limited vs Kamdhenu Metal on 4 December, 2007
A reference was also made of the decision of the Hon'ble
High court of Delhi in the matter of Kamdhenu Ispat
Limited vs. Kamdhenu Metal; CS (OS) No. 1204 of 2004
where injunction was granted on the basis of deceptive
similarity of the mark under question and the basis of
engagement of the plaintiff in the same field of activities
of the plaintiff. The Hon'ble court has nowhere observed
or determined Kamdhenu as a well-Known trademark.
M/S Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd (Oa/22/12 Tm Kol) vs M/S Pragati Primary Milk Producers Co ... on 18 May, 2023
Another reference was made of the Hon'ble High court
of Delhi in the matter of Kamdhenu Ispat Limited vs.
Pragati Primary Milk Products; CS (OS) 2564 of 2015
wherein an ad interim injection was allowed in favour of
the plaintiff but the Hon'ble court has not observed
Kamdhenu as a well-known trademark although a
reference as such was made in the submissions by the
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited vs Union Of India on 25 May, 2023
In Tata Sia Airlines Ltd. v. Union of India (2023:DHC:3659),
Justice Jyoti Singh of this Court has interpreted the interplay between
Section 11 of the 1999 Act and Rule 124 of the 2017 Rules. This Court
observed that Rule 124(5) of the 2017 Rules does not create a distinction
between a well-known trade mark declared by the Court, or determined by
the Registrar. In both scenarios, the procedures outlined are the same.
Moreover, the Court noted that the purpose of Rule 124 of the 2017 Rules
was to streamline the procedure, and bring uniformity in declaration of well-
known trademarks. The Court observed as follows:
THE TRIBUNALS REFORMS ACT, 2021
Rolex Sa vs Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Others on 15 September, 2014
20. It is now well-settled that the mark need not be known to the public at
large or the society at large, but it is sufficient if the mark is well-known
within a particular segment of the trade or consumers. The ld. Division
Bench of this Court in Rolex SA v. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. [215 (2014]
DLT 6] in this context observed as follows: