Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)Amrutanjan Limited vs Ashwin Fine Chemicals And ... on 27 August, 1990
21.Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this court in Amrutanjan Ltd. Vs. Ashwin Fine Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals in C.S.No.74 of 1982 for the purpose of contending that considering the very object and purview of the Act, when once the Trade Mark of a product has been registered at a place specified by the Act and in pursuance of the same, the product in accordance with the registered Trade Mark has been produced and is being marketed throughout India, then for any wrong done to the said Trade Mark, part of the cause of action will arise in the place where the trade mark was registered and the products are being produced and marketed.
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
22.The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parle Products P. Ltd. Vs. J.P. & Co., Mysore reported in AIR 1972 SC 1359, wherein it was held that two marks, when placed side by side, may exhibit many and various difference, yet the main idea left on the mind by both may be the same. A person acquainted with one mark and not having the two side by side for comparison, might well be deceived, if the goods were allowed to be impressed with the second mark, into a belief that he was dealing with goods which bore that with which he was acquainted.
Officine Lovata S.P.A. vs Ajay Kumar Aggarwal And Anr. on 1 May, 2005
26.The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Officine Lovata S.P.A. Vs. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal & another reported in 2005 (30) PTC 465 (Mad), wherein it was held that the situs of the Trade Mark (stated to be infringed), being situated in the appropriated office of the Trade Mark Registry at Chennai, would give a cause of action for the plaintiff to come before this Court.
Prakash Roadline Ltd. vs Prakash Parcel Service (P) Ltd. on 1 March, 1992
27.The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi Court in Prakash Roadline Ltd. Vs. Prakash Parcel Services (P) Ltd. reported in 1992 IPLR (17) 251, wherein it was held that the plaintiff feels danger from defendant in view of the fact that the defendant's promoters are the ex-Directors/employees of the plaintiff who are fully in the know of the business secrets of the plaintiff. Therefore, the mere fact that the plaintiff has not chosen to take any action against such other parties cannot disentitle the plaintiff from taking the present action.
Wipro Limited vs Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) ... on 29 February, 2008
29.The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Wipro Limited Vs. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (3) CTC 724 wherein it has been held that by virtue of Section 120 of the CPC., the provisions of Section 20 are not applicable as far as High Court is concerned. Therefore, the scope of this section cannot be curtailed by reference to Section 20 of the CPC or Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, in a case of infringement of trade mark or copyright covered by Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act or Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, the question of plaintiff taking prior leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent does not arise. The plaintiff need not take leave of the Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent even if a part of the cause of action or no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, if the plaintiff ordinarily resides or carries on business within the jurisdiction of the Court.
Parle Products Private Limited vs Surya Food & Agro Limited on 9 September, 2008
30.Per contra, Ms.S.Kala, learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surya Food & Agro Ltd. reported in 2007 (35) PTC 542 (Mad) for the purpose of showing that even if the forum convenience test is adopted, the plaintiff cannot have jurisdiction in this court. He referred to paragraph 16 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: