Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.34 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries ... vs Cipla Limited on 3 October, 2008
34. The law as enunciated above, was recently reiterated by this Court in the
case of CICO Technologies Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Tapcrete Marketing (P) Ltd.
and Ors. 2008 (38) PTC 621 and in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs.
Cipla Ltd., 2009(39) PTC 347 (Del). In both the said cases, the right of the
CS(OS) 783/2009 Page No. 26 of 30
plaintiff to institute a suit for infringement of registered trademark was
questioned on the ground that the plaintiff was not yet the registered owner of
the impugned trademark. Dealing with the aforesaid question, it was held that
it would play havoc with the assignment and trading of trademarks, expressly
permitted by the Act, if the assignor, who has divested himself of title by
executing an assignment deed can nevertheless continue exercising rights over
the registered trademark and the person in whom title has been vested by
assignment is held not entitled to use the same owing to non-registration.
Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. And Anr. vs Orchid Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals ... on 16 May, 2006
It
was ruled, relying upon the judgments of this Court in Modi Threads Ltd.,
Grandley Electricals Ltd. and Astrazeneca UK Ltd. (supra) that rights in the
trademark accrue on the basis of assignment deeds, though in the records of the
Registrar of Trademark, the mark may still be shown in the name of the
assignor.
Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. & ... vs Vidya Batra & Ors. on 3 September, 1998
In M/s. Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Vidya Batra and
Ors. 1998 VII A.D (Delhi) 618, the plaintiff, who had entered into the
partnership with two other persons, who subsequently retired from the
partnership, relinquishing all their rights in the said partnership and assigning
their rights and interests in the partnership property, including the trade name
and trademark 'GRANDLAY' in favour of the plaintiff, brought an action for
infringement of the said trademark against the defendants, who opposed the
CS(OS) 783/2009 Page No. 24 of 30
same, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs were neither the proprietors
of the trademark 'GRANDLAY' nor the firm 'Grandlay Electricals (India)', as
the said trademark had not been registered in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence the
plaintiffs were debarred from bringing an action for infringement of the
trademark.
United Bank Of India vs Sh. Naresh Kumar And Ors on 18 September, 1996
12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff sought to counter the first
contention of the defendants' counsel by urging that the suit had been properly
instituted through the Managing Trustee, Shri Chandra Kumar Sah. He
contended that Shri Chandra Kumar Sah had been appointed as Managing
Trustee of the Board of Trustees under Clause 5.1 of the Trust Deed dated 5 th
November, 2000 and by virtue of the provisions of Clause 5.5(a) was to
continue to be the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff trust for his life time.
Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of
India Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3, it was urged that the trust
deed itself authorized the Managing Trustee, Chandra Mohan Sah to file the
CS(OS) 783/2009 Page No. 10 of 30
instant suit. Thus, Clause 8, sub-clause (h) of the Trust Deed, which deals with
the powers of the Managing Trustees, empowered the Managing Trustee: