Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)
Atul Kumar Manilal Shah, Proprietor, ... vs Nasik Hing Supplying Co., Nasik And Anr. on 11 April, 2002 cites

Dalip Chand Aggarwal And Ors. vs Escorts Limited on 19 December, 1980

19. Mr. Bookwalla further relied upon the decision of a division bench of the Delhi High Court in Dalip Chand Agarwal v. Escorts Ltd., , wherein it was observed that the extent of the business along with the extent of the business interest of the opponent and the interest of the public have all to be correlated in deciding whether applicant's mark should be registered or not and if the Court is in any doubt that if the mark will cause confusion, registration will be refused. In that case, the facts were that the Escorts Company which was incorporated in 1944, obtained registration of the Trade Mark which consisted of the word "Escorts" in 1961. This Trade Mark related to goods amongst others to electric irons, electric kettles, soldering irons and elements of electric irons etc. On 23-3-1963, the appellant applied for the registration of the same trade mark in respect of the same goods. It was not disputed that the items for which the appellant had sought registration were already covered by the registration earlier obtained by the respondents. The Assistant Registrar allowed the registration sought for by the appellant, holding that his case was covered by Section 12(3) as well as by Section 33 of the Act. In appeal filed by the respondents, the order of the Assistant Registrar was set aside and in further appeal before the division bench, the dismissal was maintained. I do not think that this decision helps Mr. Bookwalla in any way for the simple reason that it is not a case of prior use by the appellant (Dalip Chand), who had applied for the registration of the same trade mark. But on the contrary, it was a case of prior use and registration by the respondents (Escorts Company).
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next