Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)

Dabur India Ltd vs K.R. Industries on 16 May, 2008

10. The Court below by referring the judgments reported in AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3132 PTC 348 Dabur India Ltd., v. K.R. Industries has held that, the suit is maintainable in respect of a composite suit in respect of both the Trade Mark Act and Copy right Act. Para 29 of the said judgment is relevant for further purpose where it has been held that, "A composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise". IA No.1 filed by the plaintiff under the Trade Mark Act for the relief of passing off, when such being the case it should not have been construed as composite suit. The suit is still pending and it is submitted that, yet the issues have not been framed. Under these circumstances and in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court and also this Court referred supra, the trial Court is required to examine the requirements of Section 2(b) of Trade Mark Act and Section 20 of the 13 CPC for the purpose of filing suit where the defendants reside or carrying on business and more particularly the Court below should examine the legal position by referring para No.29 of the judgment in the case of Dabur India and related case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 59 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S J P Distilleries Pvt Ltd vs M/S Shashi Distilleries Pvt Ltd on 25 February, 2009

has been placed reliance by the learned counsel, where the judgment referred supra in Premier Distilleries case has been followed and held at para No.16 of the judgment that, "there is no right in the person to assert infringement before registration is granted. This is clear from the fact that to maintain the suit for infringement, the cause of action would arise only if the trade mark is registered and the use of such 'registered trade mark' is infringed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - N Ananda - Full Document
1