Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.50 seconds)Section 27 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 134 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Manjibhai Laxmikant Joshi vs Legal Heirs Of Paresh @ Vithhal ... on 14 December, 2016
This Court has given its imprimatur to the above
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:59:28 :::HCHP
9
principle in the case of Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhat Shah
and Anr, 2002 3 SCC 65.
N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996
provided under the Act. This proposition has been discussed in
extenso in the case of N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool
Corporation and Anr, 1995 AIR(Del) 300wherein Division Bench
of Delhi High Court recognized that the registration is not an
indefeasible right and the same is subject to rights of prior user.
Century Traders vs Roshan Lal Duggar Co. on 27 April, 1977
33. Fourthly, It is also well settled principle of law in the
field of the trade marks that the registration merely recognizes
the rights which are already pre-existing in common law and
does not create any rights. This has been explained by the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Century
Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar Company, 1978 AIR(Del) 250in the
of
following words: