Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.60 seconds)
Marico Limited vs M/S Hind Cosmetics on 22 September, 2011 cites

Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. And Anr. vs Orchid Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals ... on 16 May, 2006

7. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff. Having regard to the evidence on record, the plaintiff has been able to establish the essential ingredients of section 29(1) of the Trademarks Act in view of trademark MANJAL, which is registered in India under No.1109980 in class 3 as on 07.06.2002 in respect of ayurvedic bath soap. The certified copy of the registration has been filed which is exhibited as Ex.P-6. Documents placed on record also establish that plaintiff is the subsequent proprietor of the aforesaid trademark which was duly assigned in favour of the plaintiff vide a deed of assignment marked Ex.P-2 and an application in the form of TM-24 for recordal of the plaintiff as the subsequent proprietor has also been filed with the Registrar of Trademarks, which is marked as Ex.P-4. Counsel has relied upon Astrazeneca U.K. Ltd. and And Vs. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2006 (32) PTC 733 DEL, Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. Vs. Vidya Batra 1998 PTC (18) 646 (Del), Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Cipla Ltd. 2009 (39) PTC 347 (Del.)
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 71 - A Kumar - Full Document

Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. & ... vs Vidya Batra & Ors. on 3 September, 1998

7. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff. Having regard to the evidence on record, the plaintiff has been able to establish the essential ingredients of section 29(1) of the Trademarks Act in view of trademark MANJAL, which is registered in India under No.1109980 in class 3 as on 07.06.2002 in respect of ayurvedic bath soap. The certified copy of the registration has been filed which is exhibited as Ex.P-6. Documents placed on record also establish that plaintiff is the subsequent proprietor of the aforesaid trademark which was duly assigned in favour of the plaintiff vide a deed of assignment marked Ex.P-2 and an application in the form of TM-24 for recordal of the plaintiff as the subsequent proprietor has also been filed with the Registrar of Trademarks, which is marked as Ex.P-4. Counsel has relied upon Astrazeneca U.K. Ltd. and And Vs. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2006 (32) PTC 733 DEL, Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. Vs. Vidya Batra 1998 PTC (18) 646 (Del), Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Cipla Ltd. 2009 (39) PTC 347 (Del.)
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries ... vs Cipla Limited on 3 October, 2008

7. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff. Having regard to the evidence on record, the plaintiff has been able to establish the essential ingredients of section 29(1) of the Trademarks Act in view of trademark MANJAL, which is registered in India under No.1109980 in class 3 as on 07.06.2002 in respect of ayurvedic bath soap. The certified copy of the registration has been filed which is exhibited as Ex.P-6. Documents placed on record also establish that plaintiff is the subsequent proprietor of the aforesaid trademark which was duly assigned in favour of the plaintiff vide a deed of assignment marked Ex.P-2 and an application in the form of TM-24 for recordal of the plaintiff as the subsequent proprietor has also been filed with the Registrar of Trademarks, which is marked as Ex.P-4. Counsel has relied upon Astrazeneca U.K. Ltd. and And Vs. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2006 (32) PTC 733 DEL, Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. Vs. Vidya Batra 1998 PTC (18) 646 (Del), Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Cipla Ltd. 2009 (39) PTC 347 (Del.)
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 31 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

CS(OS)No.1826/2008 PTC 2010 (42) 307 (Del.), in support of her contention that the suit for infringement can be brought by the subsequent proprietor during the pendency of the recordal of the assignment. The user of the trademark by a person who is not a registered proprietor or a person, who has not been authorized to use trademark, is also a necessary ingredient which has been duly satisfied by the plaintiff, as the defendant, M/s.Hindi Cosmetic is neither registered proprietor nor permitted user of the mark MANJAL. Comparing of both the marks showed that the mark of the defendant is identical or deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff and in fact defendant has used the identical registered trademark as that of the plaintiff being MANJAL and is being used in the course of trade and he is also affixing the same name to identical goods. Counsel for the has relied upon Kaviraj Pandit Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories AIR 1965 SC 980, wherein it has been held that "Where the two marks are identical, no further question arise for, then the infringement is made out."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 512 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Time Incorporated vs Lokesh Srivastava And Anr. on 3 January, 2005

In the case of Time Incorporated vs. Lokesh Srivastava & Anr., 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del), this Court observed that punitive damages are founded on the philosophy of corrective justice and as such, in appropriate cases these must be awarded to give a signal to the wrong doers that the law does not take a breach merely as a matter between rival parties but feels concerned about those also who are not party to the lis but suffer on account of the breach.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 294 - R C Chopra - Full Document

Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs Shree Assuramji Scooters on 29 November, 2005

In the case of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs. Shree Assuramji Scooters, 2006 (32) PTC 117 (Del), this court noticing that the defendant had chosen to stay away from the proceedings of the Court felt that in such case punitive damages need to be awarded, since otherwise the defendant, who appears in the court and submits its account books would be liable for damages whereas a party which chooses to stay away from the Court proceedings would escape the liability on account of the failure of the availability of account books. In Microsoft Corporatin vs.Deepak Raval MIPR 2007 (1) 72, this Court observed that in our country the Courts are becoming sensitive to the growing menace of piracy and have started granting punitive damages even in cases where due to absence of defendant, the exact figures of sale made by them under the infringing copyright and/or trademark, exact damages are not available. The justification given by the court for award of compulsory damages was to make up for the loss suffered by the plaintiff and deter a wrong doer and like-minded from indulging in such unlawful activities.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 96 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 Next