Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 65 (0.06 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 446 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 456 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 454 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996
At the
present stage, the argument in favour
of the appellant-defendant that we find
holds more water is that in both Milmet
[Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan
Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool
[N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn.,
(1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from
the case before us, the prior user of the
successful party predated the date of
application for registration of the
competing party. The question to
examine, then, would be whether prior
user would have to be anterior to the
date of application or prior to the user
by the appellant-defendant. In other
words, the question before the Court
would remain whether the situation on
the date of application for registration
alone would be relevant, or whether the
developments in the period between
this date and the date of grant of
registration would have any bearing on
the rights of the parties. All these
considerations will be cast into a curial
cauldron to be appreciated by the Court
before which the suit is being