Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.08 seconds)Section 10 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996
The Supreme Court in N.R. Dongre and Ors v. Whirlpool Corporation and Anr., (followed in Milmet) affirmed the view expressed by the Division Bench.
Baker Hughes Ltd. And Anr. vs Hiroo Khushlani And Anr. on 16 July, 2004
It was held that The grafting of the concept of user to the requirement of reputation in the definition of the tort of passing off cannot be accepted in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ruston and Hornby Ltd. v. Zamindars Engineering Co. and N.R. Dongre v. M/s Whirlpool Corporation Ltd. It may be mentioned that Baker Hughes was set aside by a Division Bench on some other point but was upheld by the Supreme Court in Baker Hughes Ltd. v. Hiroo Khushalani, 2004 (29) PTC 153 (SC). I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the two learned Judges of this Court and see no reason to follow a different path. Consequently, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the Defendants are either distinguishable or not applicable.
Section 394 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004
38. To answer this question, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs drew my attention to N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation and Anr., and Milmet Oftho Industries and Ors. v. Allergan Inc., . On the other hand, learned counsel for the Defendants contended that the important question to ask is who gets past the post first the length of user of the trademark being immaterial.
Consolidated Foods Corporation vs Brandon And Company Private Ltd. on 26 April, 1961
For this he relied on Gaw Kan Lye v. Saw Kyone Saing, AIR 1939 Rangoon 349, Consolidated Foods Corporation v. Brandon and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Uniply Industries Ltd. v. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd, . Learned counsel for the Defendants also contended that since the Plaintiffs did not have a presence in India prior to the Defendants entering the Indian market, his clients would be the prior user of the trademark Blenders Pride for all intents and purposes. I think the development of the law is to the contrary.
Uniply Industries Ltd vs Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 1 May, 2001
For this he relied on Gaw Kan Lye v. Saw Kyone Saing, AIR 1939 Rangoon 349, Consolidated Foods Corporation v. Brandon and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Uniply Industries Ltd. v. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd, . Learned counsel for the Defendants also contended that since the Plaintiffs did not have a presence in India prior to the Defendants entering the Indian market, his clients would be the prior user of the trademark Blenders Pride for all intents and purposes. I think the development of the law is to the contrary.
M/S. J.N. Nichols (Vimto) Limited vs Rose & Thistle And Another on 2 September, 1993
While arriving at the above conclusions, the Division Bench referred to the conclusions arrived at by the Calcutta High Court in J.N. Nichols (Vimto) Ltd. v. Rose and Thistle 1994 PTC 83 (paragraph 20) and Consolidated Foods Corporation (which was, incidentally, relied on by learned counsel for the Defendants).
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. vs Rainforest Cafe And Ors. on 12 April, 2001
46. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs also drew my attention to Rainforest Cafe, Inc v. Rainforest Cafe and Ors., 2001 PTC 353 (Delhi) wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the contention that the plaintiff therein was not entitled to an injunction because of non-user and non-activity in India. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, but in any case since it appears to me that the matter is now conclusively settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Milmet it is not necessary to discuss Rainforest.