user of the marks for lathe
machines since 1994. Both oppositions filed by the Plaintiff are pending
before the Trade Marks Registry. Plaintiff ... Defendant filed a false and frivolous suit under
Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred
2022/DHC/002963
in the trademark jurisprudence and any use of the mark by a third party is
unlawful and unauthorised.
15. Defendants have ... using the
same without any interruption since 1998. Throughout in the Trade Marks
Registry, during prosecution of their trademark as also in the oppositions
filed
Carlton Shoes Ltd. & Anr. vs Vip Industries Ltd. on 17 July, 2023
Author: Jyoti
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. vs Kent Ro Systems Limited & Ors. on 30
004060
the year 2008, which is false and also contrary to the record in the
Trade Marks Registry. Some of the invoices placed on record ... taken before the Registrar of Trade Marks for rectification.
Since the matter is pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks, at this
stage, it would
Trade Marks Registry.
28. It is further averred that Plaintiff did not find any use of Defendant
No. 1's mark ... therefore, assumed that the
Defendants were making false and unjustified claims before the Trade Marks
Registry.
29. It is further averred that, however, in June
impugned
mark UA WOMEN, is identical and deceptively similar to that of the
Plaintiff's trademarks/tradename. The impugned mark/label as used ... basic idea and as such the impugned
mark/label would falsely lead the members of the trade and public to believe
that: (i.) the impugned
trademark is a false trade description within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(i) read with Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act,
1999, leading ... Appellant for registration of its
trademark was rejected by the Trade Marks Registry and this was not
rebutted on behalf of the Appellant. Learned Trial
trademark is a
false trade description within the meaning of Section 2(1)(i) read with
Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, leading ... Appellant for registration of its
trademark was rejected by the Trade Marks Registry and this was not
rebutted on behalf of the Appellant. Learned Trial
mark
KP, details of which are mentioned in the plaint. The said mark is duly
subsisting on the Register of Trade Marks Office ... mark
in class 31, when it was advertised in the
Trade Mark Journal. Plaintiff immediately filed an opposition against the
said mark on 16.05.2016. Defendants
