Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.34 seconds)Bajaj Electricals Limited vs Metals & Allied Products And Anr. on 4 August, 1987
In Bajaj Electricals Ltd. (supra), the trademark was. 'Bajaj' which was a surname and was registered as a trademark. In a number of other suits which have been referred on behalf of the plaintiff the trademark was 'Gwalior' and 'Oxford which are geographical names and the injunction was granted.
Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 22 March, 1996
In Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) the word "Mahendra" was accepted as a registered trademark and an injunction was granted. All these judgments would show that geographical name, if it had acquired distinctiveness, can be used as a trademark and may even by registered under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act.
R.S.K.V. Raghavan Trading As R.S. ... vs G. R. Gopal & Co. And Ors. on 19 September, 1980
5. Counsel for plaintiff has distinguished the case law cited by the defendant that the geographical names are not entitled to be registered as trade mark. It was contended that The Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors., AIR 1997 Calcutta 413; R.S.K.V. Raghavan Trading as R.S. Krishna & Co. v. G.R. Gopal & Co. and Ors., ; Surya Agro Oils Ltd. v. Surya Coconut Oil Industries Ltd., ; Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Universal Trading Co., 2000 PTC 561 related to the registration of trademark whereas the present suit is filed for passing off; as such those cases are distinguishable. It was also contended that even the word "SURYA" and "SUN" have been protected by this Court in various judgments. Accordingly, it is submitted that the first objection of the defendant has no merit.
Hindustan Pencils Private Limited And ... vs M/S. Universal Trading Company on 31 October, 2000
5. Counsel for plaintiff has distinguished the case law cited by the defendant that the geographical names are not entitled to be registered as trade mark. It was contended that The Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors., AIR 1997 Calcutta 413; R.S.K.V. Raghavan Trading as R.S. Krishna & Co. v. G.R. Gopal & Co. and Ors., ; Surya Agro Oils Ltd. v. Surya Coconut Oil Industries Ltd., ; Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Universal Trading Co., 2000 PTC 561 related to the registration of trademark whereas the present suit is filed for passing off; as such those cases are distinguishable. It was also contended that even the word "SURYA" and "SUN" have been protected by this Court in various judgments. Accordingly, it is submitted that the first objection of the defendant has no merit.
P.M. Diesels Ltd. vs M/S. Patel Field Marshal on 10 March, 1998
In P.M. Diesels Ltd. v. Patel Field Marshal Industries, AIR 1998 Delhi 255 : 1998 PTC (18) 260(Del)(DB) a Division Bench of this Court held that for deciding about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at the preliminary stage only the averment made in the plaint should be looked into and further that since the plaintiff was carrying on the business and were advertising its trademark in the trademark journal so the Court would have otherwise jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of Copyright Act.
Jawahar Engineering Co. And Ors. vs Javahar Engineering Private Ltd. on 16 February, 1983
In Jawahar Engineering Co. and Ors. v. Jawahar Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 1983 PTC 207 a Division Bench of this Court held that the court had jurisdiction on account of advertisement appearing in trade mark journal in Delhi.
M/S Ruchi Pvt. Ltd. And Others vs M/S Indian Flame Enterprises And Others on 5 September, 2001
In Ruchi Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Lame Enterprises, 2001 PTC 876 it was held that for the purpose of grant of ad interim injunction the court was required to look into the allegation made in the plaint and not upon the defense set up by the defendant.
Dharam Pal Satya Pal vs Janta Sales Corporation on 4 April, 1990
14. The case law referred above on behalf of the plaintiff would show that at the time of deciding an ad interim injunction the court would only look into the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. In para 17 of the plaint it was alleged that the defendant was selling, distributing and marketing oil in the trade name Chambal all over India which means in Delhi also, as per the allegations made in reply to the legal notice by it dated 20.2.2003. It is further alleged that the court also has jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act as the plaintiff is carrying on its business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel for defendant does not dispute that the defendant is selling its products in the name of Chambal Deep within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It has also not been disputed that the plaintiff has submitted the application for registration of the trademark Chambal Deep for selling its product all over India and this has been published in the trade mark journal within the jurisdiction of this Court. Since it is not a case based on infringement of copyright, therefore, the court would not assume jurisdiction to try the suit by virtue of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. But at this stage prima facie there are allegations in the plaint and the facts which are not disputed which would show that the defendant is selling its oil products in the name of Chambal Deep within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. So far the purposes of deciding an application for interlocutory injunction order this Court may assume jurisdiction.
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
This is evident from the decisions of this Court in the cases of National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. Case, , Corn Products Refining Co. case, , Amritdhara Pharmacy case, : PTC (Suppl)(2) 1(SC), Durgar Dutt Sharma case, , and Hoffman-La Roche & Co. Ltd. Case, .