Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.32 seconds)Section 34 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996
The said decision
of Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., 1995 SCC
OnLine Del 310 : AIR 1995 Del 300] was further affirmed by
the Supreme Court of India in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool
Corpn. [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I.A. No. 16232/2015 in CS (OS) No. 2368/2015 Page 42 of 63
31.2. The applicability of the said principle can be seen as to
which proprietor has generated the goodwill by way of use of
the mark/name in the business. The use of the mark/carrying on
business under the name confers the rights in favour of the
person and generates goodwill in the market. Accordingly, the
latter user of the mark/name or in the business cannot
misrepresent his business as that of business of the prior right
holder. That is the reason why essentially the prior user is
considered to be superior than that of any other rights.
Consequently, the examination of rights in common law which
are based on goodwill, misrepresentation and damage are
independent to that of registered rights. The mere fact that both
prior user and subsequent user are registered proprietors are
irrelevant for the purposes of examining who generated the
goodwill first in the market and whether the latter user is
causing misrepresentation in the course of trade and damaging
the goodwill and reputation of the prior right holder/former
user. That is the additional reasoning that the statutory rights
must pave the way for common law rights of passing off.
(emphasis supplied)
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 27 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
83. Moreover, the plea of acquiescence fails also, as it prima facie
appears that the impugned mark has been dishonestly adopted. The Supreme
Court in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3
SCC 90, held that "The law on the subject is well settled. In cases of
infringement either of Trade Mark or Copyright normally an injunction must
follow. Mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of
injunction in such cases. The grant of injunction also becomes necessary
if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the mark was itself
dishonest.". The defendants therein had failed to provide an explanation as
to why their cartons had the mark "LAXMAN REKHA", which was similar
to the plaintiffs mark and contained colors of red, white and blue to look
almost identical to that of the plaintiffs. This act, the Court held, prima
facie, indicated the dishonest intention to pass off his goods as that of the
appellants. (emphasis supplied)