Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Five Star Electricals (India) And Anr. on 4 March, 2008 cites

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs B. Mahajan And Ors. on 10 July, 2007

In Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. B. Mahajan and Ors 2007 (35) PTC 265(Del) the applicant sought interim injunction against the trademark and copyrights of mark 'Canon' used for imaging equipments and information systems alleging that defendant was using the trademark 'canon' for similar style and get up in goods consisting of nuts, bolts and fasteners etc. This Court observed that while considering the action of passing off, the Court has to keep in mind if there was likelihood of even in the minds of the customers. If there was dissimilarity in the goods and services, the possibility of confusion and suspicion would normally be less. This Court also observed that the plaintiff in fact has not used its registered trademark in respect of the goods falling in Class '6' and '20' and, therefore, there seems to be no force in the defendants submission that the registration obtained by the plaintiff is liable to be taken off the register under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act because of its use. The defendants had been using the trademark 'canon' as part of their trademark since 1995 for fasteners, nut, bolts and the application of the defendant was also advertised in trademarks journals based on users. The defendant had also participating in various exhibitions and openly using the the mark 'canon' as part of their trade name and style and the plaintiffs did not even claim to have objected to the same. The Court refused to issue interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff. This Court also observed that a large number of entities world over were apparently using the mark 'canon' as part of their style and trademarks. Thus, the mark 'canon' was not distinctive of plaintiff's goods world over.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. vs Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 1 November, 2006

In Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. v. Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (34) PTC 91(Del.) the plaintiff was the owner of registered trademark 'Sona' in Class '30' but was using it for spices only whereas the defendant was also registered trademark owner of trademark 'Sona' in respect of class '30' and was using it for Tea and other beverages. The trademark of the plaintiff was registered in October, 1980. The trademark of defendant was registered in respect of Tea in June 1983. The plaintiff contended that it was prior user of trademark 'Sona' and has commenced its business sometime in 1975 and defendant was passing off its tea as that of the plaintiff. This Court observed that plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for interference even though plaintiff may be entitled to say that its user of trademark 'Sona' can extend beyond spices such as tea but the plaintiff has not utilized its trademark for manufacture of tea, prior to 1993 while the defendant was manufacturing the tea much prior to 1993 i.e. since 1978-79 and was user of trademark 'Sona' in respect of Tea. The plaintiff had taken no steps to protect its interests in respect of trademark 'Sona' regarding manufacture and sale of tea. The Court, therefore, held that there was no case in favor of the plaintiff and refused to grant injunction to the plaintiff against the use of the trademark 'Sona' by defendant.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 Next