Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)The Copyright Act, 1957
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
20. Law relating to passing off action is quite well settled in
order to succeed in getting an interim injunction. Party claiming
prior/earlier user of the mark in question has to established prior user
in time by production of cogent and clear evidence. As far as the case
of infringement is concerned, Supreme Court in the case of Kaviraj
Pandit Durga Dutta Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical
Laboratories; AIR 1965 SC 980 at 990 has laid down as under :
Pioneer Nuts & Bolts Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Goodwill Enterprises on 11 September, 2009
30. Similar situation arose in the case of Pioneer Nuts and
Bolts Pvt. Ltd. v. Goodwill Enterprises: 2009 (41) PTC 362 (Del.)
(DB) wherein the prior user was claimed by the parties. The relevant
paras of the said judgment are as under:
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 28 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Swaran Singh vs Usha Industries (India) And Anr. on 18 November, 1985
13. The other issue was of prior user. The learned single Judge
relied on the copies of the partnership deeds where Harpreet
Singh was shown as partner of the firm from 1991 in relation to
the business and the product. Reliance was placed on the
judgment in Swaran Singh v. Usha Industries (India), AIR 1986
Del 343: 1986 (60 PTC 287 (Del) (DB) and Mocolube India
Ltd. v. Maggon Auto Centre, 2008 (36) PTC 231 (Delhi) to hold
that the Plaintiff has been able to establish prima facie existence
of registration in its favour, in relation to the subject marks, with
effect from 1998 and 2002. Yet there was no credible evidence
of proof of the use of the mark from that period; the materials
were sketchy. It was held that the Plaintiff had not produced any
material to show that it had used the mark prior to 1998. On the
other hand, the Defendant has "prima facie shown that the mark
was advertized in 1993 and 1999 and trade enquiries through
original letters, indents, etc. existed in 1993, 1994, 1995
onwards". The issuance of telegraphic name „TUFF‟ by the
Postal Department in 1994, 1995 was also noticed and it was
held that the Defendant was "prima facie continuously using the
marks since 1993 at least, enabling it to the benefit of Section 34
of the Act." Accordingly the injunction was refused.