Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 29 in The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Disney Enterprises, Inc vs Mr. Rajesh Bharti & Ors on 13 February, 2013
In Disney Enterprises Inc. Vs. Mr. Rajesh Bharti & Ors., 2013
(54) PTC372 (Del.), dealing in detail with the aspect of damages in exparte
matters & punitive damages, this Court had awarded to the plaintiff
compensatory damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- and punitive damages of Rs.
3,00,000/. The court was of the view that, in actions for infringement of
trademarks, copyrights etc, courts should not only grant compensatory
damages but also award punitive damages, which have a deterrent effect not
only on the defendant but also on others. It further observed that punitive
damages can be granted by the court even in the exparte matters, where
exact damages cannot be assessed due to non-availability of sales figures of
the defendants under the infringing trademark. The court observed that in
cases of flagrant infringement, proof of actual benefit to the defendant or
actual loss to the plaintiff is not necessary for the award of damages.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Ardath Tobacco Company Ltd vs Mr Munna Bhai & Ors on 9 January, 2009
On the aspect of
damages, the present suit stands on a similar footing as Ardath Tobacco
Company (supra). The defendants herein, except defendant no.7, are small
panshops without any books of accounts etc, or godowns where huge
quantities of infringing material could be stocked. The stocks recovered
from defendant no.7 cannot be said to be very large considering the overall
sale of the plaintiffs.
Section 8 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Legal Metrology Act, 2009
Kapil Wadhwa & Ors. vs Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 3 October, 2012
In the present case, unlike the Kapil Wadhwa case, plaintiffs are
manufacturing the "Marlboro" cigarettes in India, which are sold by the
authorised channels in the local Indian market. The impugned packs which
the said defendants are selling are not the „made in India‟ cigarettes but are
cigarettes made abroad which are not meant for sale in the local Indian
market. Nevertheless, if the impugned packs, which are genuine products of
the plaintiffs meant for sale outside India, have been lawfully acquired from
the said market by a person and thereafter sold in the local market by him or
others representing him or purchasing them from him, it would not amount
to infringement of plaintiffs trademarks by virtue of section 30(3)(b) of the
Act.