Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr vs Pindrop Music App Private Limited on 22 May, 2017 cites

Rana Steels vs Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. on 25 March, 2008

7 On behalf of the plaintiff, arguments have been addressed by counsel Mr.Giriraj Subramanium. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon 2008 (102) DRJ 503 Ran Steels Vs. CS (COMM) 271/2017 Page 6 of 16 Ran India Steels Ltd. as also another judgment of a Bench of this Court reported as A. Kumar Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vikas Tyagi & Anr in CS (OS) No.1627/2011 decided on 04.09.2013. Submission being that under Section 29 (2) (a) of the Trademarks Act, the defendant is guilty of infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff as while riding upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff, he is offering similar goods and services for which the plaintiff already has a registration in class 41; admittedly the defendant has no registration under the said category. It is pointed out that in both the judgments (supra), the scope of Section 28 of the said Act had also been considered and the Court had noted that the question of infringement would not arise where the registered marks are used in different class or goods/services by their respective proprietors but this is clearly not so in the instant case. It is pointed out that whereas the plaintiff is offering services in class 41 under "music and media solutions", the defendant without having a registration in class 41 is using a music mobile application having the same registered trade name of the plaintiff („PINDROP‟) and trading in the same goods/services is attempting to pass off his services/goods as that of the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 18 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

A. Kumar Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikas Tyagi & Anr. on 4 September, 2013

16 Examples 1 & 2 as canvassed by the parties (extracted from the judgment of A. Kumar Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are illustrative but not exhaustive. In the instant case both the plaintiff and the defendant admittedly have their separate registered trademarks. The services of the two are different and distinct. The submission of the plaintiff that he alone has a right to enter the music domain name by virtue of his registration in Class 41 and there is an embargo on the defendant to enter the arena of music (by virtue of his registration in Class 42 alone) is, as already noted supra, a matter of trial.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

S. Syed Mohideen vs P. Sulochana Bai on 17 March, 2015

8 On behalf of the defendant, arguments have been addressed by Mr. Vaibhav Gagar, Advocate. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon judgments reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2554 Shell Brands International Ag & Anr. Vs. Gagan Chanana & Others, (2016) 2 SCC 683 S. Syed Mohideen Vs. P. Sulochana Bai as also (1997) 4 SCC 201 Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishendas Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Hyderabad & Another. It is pointed out that where the plaintiff is patently guilty of suppression of facts by virtue of which he had obtained an ex-parte order, no discretion can be exercised in favour of such a person. Section 28 (3) contemplates a situation where two or more persons are registered proprietors of trademarks which are identical and nearly similar, it gives a concurrent right to both the persons to use their registered marks in their favour in their respective fields. This Section comes to the aid of the defendant. It is additionally pointed out that the guilt of the plaintiff is writ large from the fact that the word „Pindrop‟ if typed on a Google application, all information about „Pindrop‟ is revealed which includes the information about the registration of the „Pindrop Music‟ mobile application of the CS (COMM) 271/2017 Page 8 of 16 defendant. To support this stand, learned counsel for the defendant has placed on record a search carried out by him where on typing the word „Pindrop‟ on the Google application, „Pindrop Music‟ (trade name of the defendant) appears at serial No.3. This search document has been placed on record. It is pointed out that the alleged „due diligence‟ carried out by the plaintiff would have revealed all these facts but this was deliberately withheld by the plaintiff.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 21 - Cited by 102 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Vishnudas Trading As Vishnudas vs The Vazir Sultan Tobaccoco. Ltd. ... on 9 July, 1996

8 On behalf of the defendant, arguments have been addressed by Mr. Vaibhav Gagar, Advocate. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon judgments reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2554 Shell Brands International Ag & Anr. Vs. Gagan Chanana & Others, (2016) 2 SCC 683 S. Syed Mohideen Vs. P. Sulochana Bai as also (1997) 4 SCC 201 Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishendas Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Hyderabad & Another. It is pointed out that where the plaintiff is patently guilty of suppression of facts by virtue of which he had obtained an ex-parte order, no discretion can be exercised in favour of such a person. Section 28 (3) contemplates a situation where two or more persons are registered proprietors of trademarks which are identical and nearly similar, it gives a concurrent right to both the persons to use their registered marks in their favour in their respective fields. This Section comes to the aid of the defendant. It is additionally pointed out that the guilt of the plaintiff is writ large from the fact that the word „Pindrop‟ if typed on a Google application, all information about „Pindrop‟ is revealed which includes the information about the registration of the „Pindrop Music‟ mobile application of the CS (COMM) 271/2017 Page 8 of 16 defendant. To support this stand, learned counsel for the defendant has placed on record a search carried out by him where on typing the word „Pindrop‟ on the Google application, „Pindrop Music‟ (trade name of the defendant) appears at serial No.3. This search document has been placed on record. It is pointed out that the alleged „due diligence‟ carried out by the plaintiff would have revealed all these facts but this was deliberately withheld by the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 42 - G N Ray - Full Document
1