Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 34 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Reddy???S Laboratory Ltd. vs Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 13 September, 2013
REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED v. REDDY
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD; and in the case of K.G. KHOSLA
COMPRESSORS LTD. V. KHOSLA EXTRAKTING LTD. AND
OTHERS reported in 1986(6) PTC 211 (DEL).
Section 151 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
15. It s pertinent to observe here that the Hon'ble
Suprmee Court in the case of RUSTON & HORNSBY LIMITED
v. ZAMINDARA ENGINEERING COMPANY reported in (1970)2
SCR 222 has observed that the action for infringement is a
statutory right and it is dependent upon the validity of the
registration and subject to other restrictions laid down in
Sections 30, 34 and 35 of the Trade Marks Act. In the light of
the said judgment, the case of appellant has been examined.
While considering the case of the defendant, test is to be
done by reading Sections 30, 34 and 35 of the Trade Marks
Act. After having applied the said test it is found that the
defendant was entitled to get the trade mark registered by
suffixing the word 'Patil', which is used as bona fide.
K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. vs Khosla Extrakting Ltd. And Ors. on 19 June, 1985
REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED v. REDDY
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD; and in the case of K.G. KHOSLA
COMPRESSORS LTD. V. KHOSLA EXTRAKTING LTD. AND
OTHERS reported in 1986(6) PTC 211 (DEL).
N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs Anil Garg And Ors. on 2 December, 2005
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.
RANGA RAO AND SONS v. ANIL GARG AND OTHERS reported
14
in 2005 STPL 18201 DELHI while dealing with similar case, at
paragraph 17 of the judgment has observed thus:
1