Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.47 seconds)Section 11 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
London Rubber Co. Ltd vs Durex Products on 4 March, 1963
The learned counsel cited para 8 of London Rubber case judgment to brighten his arguments that the deception may result with the registration of word 'WOOLWORTH'. Surely, when the fear of deception and confusion is being argued, we have to bring in immediately the worldwide reputation of the word to its rescue to repel the fears. One can think of only its linkage to the chains of the worldwide stores started by F.W. Woolworth.
Section 2 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
British Sugar Manufacturers, Ltd. vs Harris (Inspector Of Taxes). on 16 December, 1937
In support of his claim he referred to Furniture land Ltd. v. Harris and Ors., (1989) FSR 536, County Sound Pic.
Section 100 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Nestle'S Products (India) Ltd. vs P. Thankaraja And Anr. on 29 April, 1977
11. Furniture land is about the words 'Furniture Land' per se the word 'Furniture' was held to be descriptive. Country Sound is about the use of the words 'Gold' and 'Golden' in relation to popular music hits which had acquired reputation as such in 1950s, 60s and 70s. The case of M/s. E.G. Huges Limited is about the word 'Vapo rub', which has construed to have been derived from 'Vapour and Rub'. It was held that though novelty was sought to be given by dropping the letters 'U' and 'R', but still the word did not attain the status of an invented word. Again, for similar reasons, the word 'Instea' (Nestle case) was not held to be an invented word for the reason that the word so formed clearly made out that it is a condensation of the expression 'Instant Tea'. We fell that these are inappropriate analogies in the instant case.
Mohd. Rafiq And Anr. vs Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. on 2 August, 1971
The learned counsel further argued that it is wrong to assail the proposed mark under Section 9(l)(d) of the Act since registration sought is for Part B of the Register. She referred to judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mohd. Rafiq v. Modi Sugar Mills, AIR 1972 Delhi 46.
1