Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.78 seconds)
Mrs. Anugya Gupta vs Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr. on 5 July, 2022 cites

Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dgawan & Anr. on 6 January, 1999

34. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief for the mark, „SARKARIRESULT‟, being generic or descriptive, is also liable to be rejected. It is a settled law that a defendant in a Suit for passing off, having claimed registration of a similar mark, is estopped from contending that the mark is otherwise generic or descriptive in nature. [Ref.: Indian Hotels Company Ltd. & Anr. v. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture, 2008 OnLine Del 1758; Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:28:27 CS(COMM) 422/2020 Page 15 of 17 Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 50; and Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan & Anr., 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27]
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 93 - Full Document

Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 6 May, 2004

In Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145, the Supreme Court observed that with the development of the internet, a domain name is also used as a business identifier. The use of the same or similar domain name may lead to a diversion of users, which could result from such users mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:28:27 CS(COMM) 422/2020 Page 12 of 17 another. Therefore, a domain name may have all the characteristics of a trade mark and could found an action for passing off. While registration of a domain name with such Domain Name Registrars may not have the same consequences as registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, nevertheless, it at least evidences recognised user of a mark. Referring to the Uniform Domain Name Disputes Resolution Policy, the Supreme Court observed that the said Rules grant protection to intellectual property in a domain name. A prior registrant can protect its domain name against the subsequent registrants. The confusing similarity in domain names may be a ground for complaint, and similarity is to be decided on the possibility of deception amongst potential customers. The defences available to a complaint are also substantially similar to those available to an action for passing off under trade mark law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 155 - R Pal - Full Document

Nrb Bearings Limited vs Windsor Export on 22 September, 2014

In NRB Bearings Limited v. Windsor Export, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1672, this Court reiterated that a domain name serves the same function as the trade mark and is not a mere address or like-finding number on the internet and, therefore, is entitled to equal protection as a trade mark. Where there is a probability of confusion in business, an injunction will be granted even though the defendants adopted the name innocently.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - M Singh - Full Document

S. Syed Mohideen vs P. Sulochana Bai on 17 March, 2015

31. It is equally well settled that a prior user of the mark can seek an order of injunction even against a registered owner of the mark. The rights of the prior user are recognised as superior to that of the registration, and even the registered proprietor cannot disturb/interfere with the rights of the prior user. The action for passing off is premised on the right of the prior user generating goodwill and shall remain unaffected by any registration provided under the Act. The mere fact that both the prior user and the subsequent user are registered proprietors is 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. [Ref: S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683; N.R. Dongre (supra)].
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 21 - Cited by 102 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959

32. Further, it is equally well settled that the registration of a mark prior at the point of time to the user of a similar mark by another is irrelevant in action for passing off by the other. The register maintained by the Trade Mark Registry does not provide its user by the persons in whose name the mark was registered. It is possible that the mark may have been registered but not used. It is not permissible to draw any inference as to the user of the mark from its mere presence in the register of the Trade Mark. [Ref.: Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., (1960) 1 SCR 968]. In fact, in the present case, the application seeking registration of the trade mark by the defendants was filed with the declaration that the mark was proposed to be used. The defendants cannot wash away such a declaration by putting the blame on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:28:27 CS(COMM) 422/2020 Page 14 of 17 their attorney. In terms of Rule 25 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, read with Note (d) to Clause 9 of TM-A, such declaration is final.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 398 - Full Document

Pidilite Industries Limited vs Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products ... on 13 January, 2014

34. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief for the mark, „SARKARIRESULT‟, being generic or descriptive, is also liable to be rejected. It is a settled law that a defendant in a Suit for passing off, having claimed registration of a similar mark, is estopped from contending that the mark is otherwise generic or descriptive in nature. [Ref.: Indian Hotels Company Ltd. & Anr. v. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture, 2008 OnLine Del 1758; Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:28:27 CS(COMM) 422/2020 Page 15 of 17 Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 50; and Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan & Anr., 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27]
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 26 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document
1   2 Next