Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Agricultural Produce (Grading And Marking) Act, 1937
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Section 17 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Lal Babu Priyadarshi vs Amritpal Singh on 27 October, 2015
(iv) In Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh , MANU/SC/1260/2015,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the word “RAMAYAN” is publici juris
and common to the trade.
Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959
In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd, AIR 1960 SC
142, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that a search report from the
Registrar of Trade Marks does not constitute evidence of use. Similarly, these
photographs do not establish use by third parties. The judgment of this Court in
P.M.Palani Mudaliar & Co. v. M/s.Jansons Exports and Another, 2017 SCC
OnLine Mad 1090 (“Palani Mudaliar”), is relied on for the contention that
publici juris should be proved by establishing at least substantial use by third
parties.
Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. on 9 May, 2012
In IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Bestech India Pvt.
Ltd., AIR 2013 Delhi 32, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court concluded
that the trademark ‘Ananda’ is publici juris and that the registered proprietor
had failed to provide evidence that it had acquired secondary meaning.
Chandra Bhan Agarwal And Anr. vs Arjundas Agarwal And Ors. on 8 June, 1979
In
Chandra Bhan Agarwal and another v. Arjundas Agarwal and others, AIR 1979
Calcutta 280, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the mark
‘Dora’ is descriptive and that a condition or limitation should be imposed by
the Registrar of Trade Marks in relation to such marks.
1