Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.62 seconds)
Vishnudas Kishindas Zarda Factory vs The Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. on 11 October, 1990 cites

K.R. Chinnakrishna Setty And Ors. vs Sri Ambal And Co., Madras on 25 July, 1972

In support of this, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Mysore High Court in K. P. Chinnakrishna Setty v. Ambal & Co. reported in A. I. R. 1973 Mysore page 74 and another judgment of the Bombay High Court in J. L. Mehta versus Registrar of Trade Marks . According to the learned counsel, the entry 'Manufactured Tobacco' cannot be split up subsequent registration for 'Cigarette' cannot be granted as done by the Registrar, which is contrary to the Fourth Schedule of the Rules. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the provisions of Sections 12(1) and 46(1) of the Act and in view of the fact that both "Cigarettes" and "Chewing Tabacco" answer the same description of goods viz, "Manufactured Tobacco" the Registrar should have refused to rectify the registration. In support of this, he placed reliance on In re. Gutta-parcha of Rubber Manufacturing Co.'s Applications (26 RFC 428). He also cited the following decisions in support of his contention :--Lever Bro.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 Next