Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.10 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Regional Transport Officer, ... vs N.V. Motor Service, Kozhikode And Ors. on 14 February, 1973
14. Another case cited by Mr. Bhansali is that of the Regional Transport Officer v. N. V. Motor Service, Kozhikode, AIR 1973 Ker 219, wherein it has been observed that the court before granting an interim injunction must consider whether the plaintiff has been honest and if he comes to the Court with a very material averment which turns out to be false, then the Court should be slow in exercising its power in issuing interim injunction in his favour. There cannot be any dispute about this well crystalised principle of law, but Mr. Bhansali has miserably failed to show as to how the respondent firm has concealed certain material facts or has not come with the clean hands so as to disentitle him for the equitable relief. To my mind, prima facie, the respondent has disclosed all material and substantial facts and has not concealed any significant fact. It also does not appear to have come with tainted hands. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Bhansali on this count is devoid of any substantce and the same is hereby repelled.
Hindustan Lever Limited, vs Nirma Private Limited, Ahmedabad on 9 September, 1991
In Hindustan Lever Limited, Bombay v. Nirma Private Limited, Ahemedabad, AIR 1992 Bom 195, it has been held that where dissimilarities in the trade mark are totally inadequate to wipe out general impression of unwary purchaser and where essential features of the trade mark have been imitated and there is colourable imitation of label, then the infringement of the Copyright of the label is prima facie proved. Therefore, minor and insignificant changes in the colour scheme, design and general get up are of no material consequence. A person has certainly a vested right in the registered trade mark, which means the general features of the trade mark and if those are infringed, he is entitled for a temporary injunction in his favour. Thus, the learned District Judge has rightly held that the respondent firm has shown a strong prima facie case in its favour.
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
John Richard Brady And Ors. vs Chemical Process Equipments P. Ltd. And ... on 6 July, 1987
In John Richard Brady v. Chemical Process Equipments P. Ltd., AIR 1987 Delhi 372, a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing copyrights of plaintiff and an application for interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing, selling their products and dealing in machines that were substantial imitation of design of plaintiff's unit were filed. The defendants denied and disputed the jurisdiction of the Court. It was held that it was mixed question of law and fact and could not be decided at the stage of deciding the application for temporary injunction and for that, only the averments in the plaint could be seen. In view of this proposition of law, a bare perusal of the plaint discloses that the respondent firm has pleaded that the cause of action accrued in the town of Churu. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Bhansali that the District Judge, Churu had no jurisdiction to try the suit is not tenable at this stage, because this is a mixed question of fact and law and that can only be decided after the parties have adduced their evidence.
1