Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.82 seconds)Section 12 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Imperial Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd. vs Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr. on 28 May, 1968
35. Now, I shall examine the objection raised under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act. While raising this objection, the opponent's has alleged that the impugned trade mark is not distinctive but he has not assigned the reason as to why the mark is not distinctive. Anyhow, the trade mark BANZO is a coined word, it is not a dictionary word and does not carry a meaning, it is not personal name and/or surname. The test of acquiring distinctiveness is that the mark when applied to the goods should indicate to the purchasers that they are the goods of particular a person and of nobody else. The distinctiveness must carry with it feature that the goods distinguished are the goods manufactured by particular person or coming from particular trade source and by no others. A word or words to be really distinctive of a persons' goods must generally speaking be incapable of application to the goods of anyone else. (Imperial Tobacco v. Registrar of Trade Marks and see Chivers v. Chivers 17 RPC 420 and 430 and Shredded Wheat 53 RPC 125 at 145. Being a coined word the impugned trade mark BANZO is inherently distinctive under the provisions of the Act and by virtue of continuous use by the applicant and its predecessor in title and under the test of acquiring distinctiveness it connotes the goods of the applicant and none of else.
Section 9 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Section 129 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Osram Gesellschaft Mit Beschrankter ... vs Shyam Sunder And Ors. on 16 April, 2002
In Osram Gesellschaft Mit beschrankter Haftung v. Shyam Sunder and Ors., 2002 (25) PTC 198 (Del)(DB), it was held 'admittedly, respondent has been using the trade mark 'OSHAM' in respect of the goods in class 9 for electric iron as well as his goods under class 7 for mixer, juicer, grinder and washing machine etc. Respondent has also been trading in its goods for which he applied in class 11 since August, 1980. To us it appears that there had been honest concurrent use. The respondent has been able to carve out special circumstance as stipulated under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act which permits even same and deceptively similar trade mark to another by the Registrar of course subject to such condition as may deem just and proper to the Registrar".
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
In a Civil Appeal No. 3272 of 2001 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 15994 of 1998) in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held "Broadly stated in an action for passing off on the basis of unregistered trade mark, generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity the following factors are be considered:
The Singer Manufacturing Co. vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr. on 24 August, 1964
In the case of Singer Manufacturing Co. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors., It was held that the mark 'Sagar' was not deceptively similar to the mark 'Singer'