Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Section 11 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
Any benefit of section 12(3) requires that the applicant should come with clean hands and with honest intention. If he is aware that there is a similar mark in use and that too in relation to similar goods he should keep himself away from the adoption of such a mark in relation to his products. Here, having made an attempt in 1983 for registration of the mark and having been told by the Registrar of Trade Marks that it does not muster the scrutiny of section 12(1) of the Act and thus having retreated backwards for some time, instead of looking for some other mark, the first respondent continued using the mark waiting for an opportunity to make another application which was made in the year 1988. The law in this regard is well laid down and more so in face of judgment in Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2001 PTC 541 (SC) which leaves little doubt in matter of treatment of the registration for trade marks relating to medicines and pharmaceuticals. We are of the firm opinion that the Deputy Registrar has wrongly opted to grant registration under section 12(3) of the Act having come to the conclusion that the mark fails under the scrutiny of section 12(1), we feel that the mark does not meet the requirements of section 9, 11(a) and 18(1) of the Act.
Section 100 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
1