Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.07 seconds)Section 29 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 566 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Marico Limited vs Agro Tech Foods Limited on 1 November, 2010
Marico Ltd. v. Agro Tech Foods Ltd. 174 (2010) Delhi Law Times 279
and Stokely Van Camp Inc. & anr. v. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.,
Manu/De/3132/2010.
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Dabur India Limited on 9 July, 2008
52. The defendant thus had knowledge of the plaintiffs claim, at
least from 7th February, 2007. Therefore, the delay in the facts of this
SRP 35/38
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:24:55 :::
NMW3940.09
case would not disentitle the plaintiffs to an injunction against
infringement. The defendant's continued use of the mark was at its
own peril.
Cluett Peabody & Co. Inc. vs Arrow Apparals on 24 October, 1997
53. Mr. Chagla relied upon the judgment of a learned single Judge
of this Court in Cluett Peabody & Co. Inc. v. Arrow Apparals 1998
PTC (18) 156. In that case, the mark had remained on the register for
thirty years. The same had admittedly not been used. The learned
Judge found that the mark had lost its distinctiveness, had dropped out
of use and was allowed to die for non-user. This is not so in the
present case. That the plaintiff has not established the sales figures
and advertisement expenses sufficient to maintain successfully an
action for passing off in view of the statement recorded in the order
dated 20th January, 2011 in Chamber Summons No.525 of 2010, does
not lead to the conclusion that the marks had never been used by the
plaintiffs at all since they were registered. There is nothing to belie
the plaintiffs claim that the marks had been used. The plaintiffs are not
entitled to establish the extent of the user as a result of the statement
recorded in the said order. Further, in Wyeth Holdings Corporation &
SRP 36/38
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:24:55 :::
NMW3940.09
anr. v. Burnet Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. 2008 (36) PTC 478 (Bom.
Power Control Appliances vs Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd on 8 February, 1994
),
a learned single Judge of this Court held in paragraph 24 that the
ingredients spelt out in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Power
Control Appliances & Ors. v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 2
SCC 448 to establish acquiescence were lacking inter-alia by reason
of the plaintiffs having opposed the defendant's application for
registration.
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Skol Breweries Ltd vs Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd. & ... on 28 August, 2009
20. In the result, the transfer/assignment of the marks by the seven
partners by virtue of the provisions of Part-IX of the Companies Act,
1956, is valid. Plaintiff No.1 is entitled to maintain this action as the
registered proprietor of the mark. That the application under section
45 to register its title and to register it as the proprietor of the
trademarks is pending would not prevent it from doing so. (SKOL
Breweries Ltd. v. Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd. & anr. 2009 (11)
LJSOFT 23 : AIR 2010 Bom.