Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)Section 134 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk ... on 26 July, 2018
CS(Comm)/441/2019 LKB Engineering Pvt.Ltd.Vs. Mohan Lal U Jain etc Page no. 29 of 33
In this regard, this court is supported by the Judgement of
Nandini Deluxe Vs. Karnataka Cooperative Milk, AIR 2018
Supreme Court 3516. The relevant paras of the said Judgement
is reporduced as under:-
Section 28 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Adidas Ag vs Keshav H Tulsiani & Ors on 25 May, 2022
20. The onus of this issue was on the plaintiff. In this
regard, during the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff referred to the provision of section 134(2) of
Trademark Act and submitted that plaintiff has its registered
CS(Comm)/441/2019 LKB Engineering Pvt.Ltd.Vs. Mohan Lal U Jain etc Page no. 31 of 33
office within the jurisdiction of this court i.e. West Delhi and
plaintiff is running his business within the jurisdiction of this
Court. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the case law titled Adidas
AG Vs. Keshav H Tulsiani & Others and it was also submitted
that the plaintiff has filed the present suit from the place of its
business as well as the place where the cause of action wholly
or partly arose. It is also clear from the aforesaid discussions
that defendant has been manufacturing and selling the products
under class 7,9,11 and had been populazing the same through
various medias and it has been observed that plaintiff became
aware about the same and therefore, the predecessor of the
plaintiff had communications regarding asking the defendant
not to manufacture the similar goods and subsequent thereto a
legal notice was also issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.
These facts and circumstances clearly shows that defendant
was asked to stop manufacturing and selling the relevant
products. Moreover, plaintiff is having his business place
within the jurisdiction of this court where plaintiff had further
come to know about the alleged unauthorized activities on the
part of the defendant and plaintiff also initiated action against
the defendant. Thus, the part cause of action also arose within
the jurisdiction of this Court. In view of this, it is held that this
court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. This
issue is decided accordingly.
Intercity Hotel Gmbh vs Hotel Intercity Delhi & Ors on 13 March, 2019
(iv) Intercity Hotel Vs. Hotel Intercity Delhi, 2019 SCC
Online 7644
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors on 29 August, 2006
(v) Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Arvindbhai
RambhaI Patel & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 726.
Ramaiah Life Style Cafe vs Eminent Entertainment & Ors on 15 March, 2017
In regard to the legal requirement for registration
of assignment deed, in the matter of Ramaiah Life Style Cafe
Vs. Eminent Entertainment & Ors., MANU/DE/167/2017 (a
suit for infringement of trade mark), Hon'ble Delhi High Court
has observed as under:-
Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd vs Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad on 21 March, 2012
I may
however record that the Division Bench of the High
Court of Bombay in Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. v.
Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad MANU/MH/0485/2012
has held that though prior to the amendment
registration of assignment under Section 45 could not
be said to be a mere formality but is so after the
amendment.