Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 44 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Copyright Act, 1957
Time Incorporated vs Lokesh Srivastava And Anr. on 3 January, 2005
49. Further this court has also frequently resorted to the practice of granting
punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. To this end, in
Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava & Anr., 2005 (30) PTC 3
(Del): 2005 (116) DLT 599, while awarding punitive damages of Rs. 5
lakhs in addition to compensatory damages also of Rs. 5 lakhs, Justice
R.C. Chopra observed as under:
The Heels vs Mr. V.K. Abrol And Anr. on 29 March, 2006
51. A coordinate bench of this court in the case of The Heels v. Mr. V.K
Abrol and Anr., CS(OS) NO.1385 of 2005 decided on 29.03.2006has
held:
Tata Sons Ltd. vs Manoj Dodia & Ors. on 28 March, 2011
44. Having held the marks of the plaintiff to be well-known in paragraph
27 aforegoing, I must deal with the aspect of dilution.In this respect, in
Tata Sons Ltd. (Supra)it was held as under:
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 48 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rolex Sa vs Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Others on 15 September, 2014
24. Further, in the case of Rolex SA v. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.,
2014(60)PTC131(Del), it was held that: