Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.51 seconds)Section 131 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Sunrider Corporation vs Hindustan Lever Limited And Anr. on 27 July, 2007
Further, two
Signature Not Verified
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 146/2022 Page 32 of 34
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:12.02.2024
12:11:56
coordinate Benches of this Court in Sunrider Corporation (supra) and
Mahesh Gupta (supra) held that the time prescribed in Rule 50 of the 2002
Rules is mandatory.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Wyeth Holdings Corpn. And Anr. vs Controller General Of Patents, Desings ... on 8 August, 2006
45. A reading of all the above decisions along with the discussion above,
shows that the Gujarat High Court in Wyeth Holdings Corp (supra) held in
the context of the 2002 Rules that the time period is directory following Salem
Advocate Bar Association (supra).
Hastimal Jain Trading As Oswal ... vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr. on 8 December, 1999
In Hastimal Jain trading as Oswal Industries v. Registrar of Trade
Marks & Anr., (1999 SCC OnLine Del 1020), the Full Bench has taken a
view that the time period was directory in view of Rule 53(2) of the 1959
Rules.
Section 101 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
45. A reading of all the above decisions along with the discussion above,
shows that the Gujarat High Court in Wyeth Holdings Corp (supra) held in
the context of the 2002 Rules that the time period is directory following Salem
Advocate Bar Association (supra).
Mahesh Gupta vs Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr on 8 August, 2022
Further, two
Signature Not Verified
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 146/2022 Page 32 of 34
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:12.02.2024
12:11:56
coordinate Benches of this Court in Sunrider Corporation (supra) and
Mahesh Gupta (supra) held that the time prescribed in Rule 50 of the 2002
Rules is mandatory.
Chief Forest Conservator (Wild Life) ... vs Nisar Khan on 18 February, 2003
In Sunrider Corporation, U.S.A. v. Hindustan Lever Limited & Anr.,
(2007 SCC OnLine Del 1018), the ld. Single Judge holds that Rule 50 of the
2002 Rules has been validly framed, which should be treated as part of the
Act following the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief Forest Conservator
(Wildlife) v. Nisar Khan, (2003) 4 SCC 595. The Court then went on to
observe that Rule 50 of the Rules is mandatory in nature. The relevant portion
is set out below: