Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (2.10 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
The Copyright Act, 1957
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries ... vs Cipla Limited on 3 October, 2008
17. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon judgment
of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 2009 (108) DRJ 207 titled
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industies Ltd. Vs. Cipla Ltd.
(2009) (108) DRJ 207, wherein the effect of assignment of
trademark was considered by the court. The issue is not
relevant at this stage for deciding application u/o 39 rule 4
CPC.
S. Syed Mohideen vs P. Sulochana Bai on 17 March, 2015
He has then relied upon judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S. Syed Mohideen Vs. P. Sulochana
Page 10 of 20
Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683, wherein the court granted the
relief on basis of prior user.
Rajesh Masrani vs Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd. on 28 November, 2008
18. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has also relied upon
judgment of Hon'ble Hight Court in Rajesh Masrani Vs.
Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (107) DRJ 484 (DB),
wherein it was held that "... Registration of work is not
compulsory and registration is not a condition precedent
for maintaining a suit for damages for infringement of
copyright".
Laxmikant V.Patel vs Chetanbhat Shah & Anr on 4 December, 2001
19. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further relied upon
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmikant V.
Patel Vs. Chetanbai Shah & Anr. 2002 (3) SCC 65; M/s.
Ansul Industries Vs. M/s. Shiva Tobacco Company,
ILR (2007) (1) Delhi 409 and Midas Hygiene Industries
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors., 2004 (3) SCC 90 in
furtherance of his entitlement for injunction on grounds of
passing off and infringement.
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
19. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further relied upon
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmikant V.
Patel Vs. Chetanbai Shah & Anr. 2002 (3) SCC 65; M/s.
Ansul Industries Vs. M/s. Shiva Tobacco Company,
ILR (2007) (1) Delhi 409 and Midas Hygiene Industries
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors., 2004 (3) SCC 90 in
furtherance of his entitlement for injunction on grounds of
passing off and infringement.
Industria De Diseno Textile Sa vs Oriental Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 19 May, 2015
20. Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 2014 SCC
Online Delhi 1470 titled Industria De Diseno Textil SA
Vs. Oriental Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held that
".....ex-parte order was passed keeping in view the
averments made by plaintiff as elaborated in para 21 & 22
of the plaint, namely that it was only in March 2013 that
the plaintiff received evidence which show that defendant
no.1 has started using the expression Zara per se and not
as part of ZARA TAPAS BAR i.e in the form of composite
label. Same is the thrust of the averments in para 22 of the
plaint. Factually this appears incorrect in as much as in
its affidavit filed on 14.01.2088 before the Trademark
Registry of Mr. Antonia Abril Abadin there are categorical
averments made by the plaintiff that the defendants are
using the Mark Zara per se. As this averment was made in
2008 knowledge of use of this mark could not be attributed
to be March 2013 as averred in para 21 of the plaint". The
Hon'ble Court vacated the ex-parte injunction granted to
plaintiff in the matter.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. & Anr. vs Gattubhai & Ors. on 23 March, 2022
Similar has been the observation of Hon'ble High
Court in Kent RO System Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Gattubhai &
Ors. CS (COMM) 426/2019 (MANU/DE/0897/2022)
decided on 23.03.2022 & S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu
(dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs & Ors.
AIR 1994 SC 853.