Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Beardsell Limited vs Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd on 5 April, 2022 cites

R K Copper And Alloy Llp vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 28 January, 2022

In this regard, the Defendants relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, 1970 SCR (3) 530, and CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, (1981) 2 SCC 460 and contended that goodwill is intangible and encompasses the benefits arising from the connections formed and reputation acquired by a business over the period of existence. According to the Defendants, this certainly includes the corporate name/trademark “Beardsell”. However, it should be reiterated that the scope of the MoU was limited to the transfer of the EPS business in the Eastern Region. Although the EPS business in the Eastern Region was transferred, the Plaintiff retained the EPS business in all other areas. If the intention of the Plaintiff was to assign the trademark/corporate name Beardsell to the fourth Defendant, the MoU would have provided for the same. Instead, the MoU merely imposes an obligation on the Plaintiff to facilitate the incorporation of a company by the fourth Defendant to conduct _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 28 C.S.No.828 of 2016 the acquired business. From the above, the only reasonable inference is that the corporate name was not assigned or transferred under the MoU. Thus, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981

In this regard, the Defendants relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, 1970 SCR (3) 530, and CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, (1981) 2 SCC 460 and contended that goodwill is intangible and encompasses the benefits arising from the connections formed and reputation acquired by a business over the period of existence. According to the Defendants, this certainly includes the corporate name/trademark “Beardsell”. However, it should be reiterated that the scope of the MoU was limited to the transfer of the EPS business in the Eastern Region. Although the EPS business in the Eastern Region was transferred, the Plaintiff retained the EPS business in all other areas. If the intention of the Plaintiff was to assign the trademark/corporate name Beardsell to the fourth Defendant, the MoU would have provided for the same. Instead, the MoU merely imposes an obligation on the Plaintiff to facilitate the incorporation of a company by the fourth Defendant to conduct _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 28 C.S.No.828 of 2016 the acquired business. From the above, the only reasonable inference is that the corporate name was not assigned or transferred under the MoU. Thus, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 859 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors on 29 August, 2006

At the outset, it should be noticed that the corporate names of the first and second Defendants are Beardsell Polymers Private Limited and Beardsell Equipment Private Limited, respectively. Both visually and phonetically, these corporate names are substantially similar to the corporate name of the Plaintiff. The admitted position is that the first Defendant is engaged in the EPS business. Therefore, there is little doubt that persons consuming the goods or availing of the services of the first Defendant are likely to confuse the origin of such goods or services with the goods and services of the Plaintiff. On this issue, the Plaintiff relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramdev Food Products P. Ltd. v. Arvindhbhai Rambhai Patel and others (2006) 8 SCC 726 and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 73 (Cadila). By relying on these _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 28 C.S.No.828 of 2016 judgments, the Plaintiff contended that the purpose of a trademark is to establish the connection between the goods or services and the entity manufacturing or providing such goods or services, as the case may be. To put it differently, the Plaintiff contended that the primary function of a trademark or corporate name is as a source identifier. In order to fulfil this primary function, it was contended that there should only be one source or one proprietor for every mark.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 233 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001

At the outset, it should be noticed that the corporate names of the first and second Defendants are Beardsell Polymers Private Limited and Beardsell Equipment Private Limited, respectively. Both visually and phonetically, these corporate names are substantially similar to the corporate name of the Plaintiff. The admitted position is that the first Defendant is engaged in the EPS business. Therefore, there is little doubt that persons consuming the goods or availing of the services of the first Defendant are likely to confuse the origin of such goods or services with the goods and services of the Plaintiff. On this issue, the Plaintiff relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramdev Food Products P. Ltd. v. Arvindhbhai Rambhai Patel and others (2006) 8 SCC 726 and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 73 (Cadila). By relying on these _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 28 C.S.No.828 of 2016 judgments, the Plaintiff contended that the purpose of a trademark is to establish the connection between the goods or services and the entity manufacturing or providing such goods or services, as the case may be. To put it differently, the Plaintiff contended that the primary function of a trademark or corporate name is as a source identifier. In order to fulfil this primary function, it was contended that there should only be one source or one proprietor for every mark.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

Chandrakant Sahu vs Coal India Limited 47 Wa/48/2018 Indra ... on 10 December, 2019

In support of these contentions, the Defendants relied on Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah (2002) 3 SCC 65 and Cadila and contended that the three elements of a passing-off action, _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15 of 28 C.S.No.828 of 2016 namely, reputation of goods or services, possibility of deception and likelihood of loss were not established.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 114 - Full Document

Sri Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani And Ors vs Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani on 5 November, 2003

14. The Defendants raised a further defence that the transfer of business with goodwill, includes the transfer of the corporate name “Beardsell”, and relied upon Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani v. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani (2004) 1 SCC 497 and, in particular, paragraph 68 thereof in this regard. On perusal of the MoU, it is clear that the EPS business in East India was transferred and the fourth Defendant was granted the right to operate this business through a “New Company”. The MoU recognised that this was only part of the pan-India business of the Plaintiff. In these circumstances, the transfer of goodwill under the MoU cannot be construed as including an assignment or transfer of ownership, whether sole or joint ownership, of the corporate name/trademark “Beardsell”. At best, in view of Clause 14, the Plaintiff agreed to permit one new company to carry on the acquired business, including by using the corporate name/trademark. For all these reasons, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 58 - A Kumar - Full Document

Power Control Appliances vs Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd on 8 February, 1994

15. Issue No. 3 pertains to whether the Plaintiff acquiesced in the use of the corporate name Beardsell by the first and second Defendants. The Plaintiff and the Defendants rely upon the letter dated 01.08.2008 from the Plaintiff to the Registrar of Companies. This document was exhibited as Ex.D1. By this communication, the Plaintiff objected to the use of the corporate name Beardsell by the first Defendant herein. Thus, this document establishes beyond doubt that the Plaintiff was aware of the incorporation of the first Defendant as of 01.08.2008. For such reason, the Defendants rely on this document in support of the plea of acquiescence. The Defendants also rely on question 19 and the answer thereto of D.W.1, in course of cross-examination, whereby he admitted knowledge of the incorporation of the first Defendant in 2008 and of the second Defendant in July 2014. Both parties rely on Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 2 SCC 448 (Power Control Appliances) and the Defendants also relied on Wockhardt Ltd. v. Torrent PharmaceuticalsLtd. (2018) 18 SCC 346 (Wockhardt).
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 252 - S Mohan - Full Document
1