Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.41 seconds)
Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt Ltd vs Bhavesh Suresh Kataria Proprietor Of ... on 23 February, 2026 cites

Montari Overseas Limited vs Montari Industries Limited on 7 December, 1995

Dr.Tulzapurkar has also relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Montari Overseas Ltd Vs. Montari Industries (supra), which is not a case u/s. 35, but it is a case in revolving around Section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956, providing that no Company will be registered by a name which is similar or identical or too nearly resembling the name by which a Company in existence, has been previously registered and Section 22 of the Act, making a provision for getting the name of the former altered. The pronouncement in the said decision is therefore, as regards the decision of the learned Single Judge in a Suit injuncting the defendant from using the word 'Montari' or any other word deceptively similar thereto as part of its corporate name.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 58 - M J Rao - Full Document

Jindal Industries Private Limited vs Jindal Sanitaryware Private Limited & ... on 9 May, 2023

In Jindal Industries Private Limited Vs. Jindal Sanitaryware Pvt Ltd. & Anr.7, another decision of Delhi High Court, where a Suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from using 7 CS(COMM)251/2023,I.A.8888/2023&I.A. 13154/2023 Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:03:36 ::: 27/57 COMAPL 42036-25.doc the marks jointly or severally or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark, 'JINDAL' resulted in an ad- interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's grievance in essence was, the defendant had no registration for the mark 'JINDAL' in respect of the Poly Vinyl Chloride, ("PVC") pipes and it is the registered holder of the mark, J-Plex, but started using the mark 'JINDAL' for PVC pipes. Asserting prior user in respect of the Jindal for PVC pipes and registration with effect from 1/9/2006, the Court recorded that the user by the defendant no.1 of JINDAL for PVC pipes and fittings is recent and, in any event, later in point of time both to the registration and the user of the said mark in favour of the plaintiff for identical PVC pipes, and by recording a prima facie case for infringement, a restraint order was passed against the defendant.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next