Plaintiffs' mark 'CENTRAL PARK'.
(C) The stand of the Defendants that the mark CENTRAL PARK is
generic, is baseless. Plaintiffs have adopted ... Plaintiffs used
the mark to gain advantage, cannot lead to a conclusion that the
mark is generic. Moreover, this contention was raised by Godrej
trade mark
Meronem against use of the trade mark Meromer. It is noticeable
that the proprietor of the earlier mark merely omitted the letters ... proprietor of the trade mark Meto
against use of the trade mark Metox. In this case, the earlier mark,
Meto, was formed merely by appropriating
after its use. The plaintiff cannot claim
proprietary rights in a generic mark which is publici juris.
In the trade of drugs it is common ... mark which is publici juris. The term
'KETOGOLD' is a combination of two words KETO and
GOLD. The mark is the generic
recognised the
difference between descriptive marks and suggestive marks. Marks
which are suggestive can be registered, though marks which are
descriptive cannot be registered ... deemed inherently distinctive and are
entitled to protection. In contrast, generic marks-those that
"refe[r] to the genus of which the particular product
statutory right to use that trade mark. The Appellants have
adopted their trade mark NETROMYCIN from the generic drug
name Netilmicin. When a trade mark ... such name or trade mark. When a proprietor adopts a trade mark
on the basis of name of generic drug or ingredient, it will
part of its
"ROYAL STAG" mark while obtaining registration, and "Stag" is
generic, publici juris and common to the trade, there ... idea infringement.
33. "STAG" cannot be regarded as a generic mark for whisky,
submits Mr. Hemant Singh. It has nothing to do with
Registrar. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Registrar of Trade
Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd. , AIR 1955 SC 558 and
Vardhman Buildtech ... Registrar of Trade Marks and has deliberately concealed in
the plaint that registrations are with respect to device marks and the
Signature Not Verifiednarrative
exclusionary rights cannot be afforded to the holder of
such a generic/descriptive mark, the plaintiff herein.
61. Contrary to the plaintiff’s submissions ... registered mark, and used the mark “SPRINKLERS” as
a descriptive adjective and further, the very words
SPRINKLE/SPRINKLERS is a generic and descriptive word
exclusionary rights cannot be afforded to the holder of
such a generic/descriptive mark, the plaintiff herein.
61. Contrary to the plaintiff’s submissions ... registered mark, and used the mark “SPRINKLERS” as
a descriptive adjective and further, the very words
SPRINKLE/SPRINKLERS is a generic and descriptive word
exclusionary rights cannot be afforded to the
holder of such a generic/descriptive mark, the plaintiff herein.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page ... registered mark, and used the mark “SPRINKLERS” as
a descriptive adjective and further, the very words
SPRINKLE/SPRINKLERS is a generic and descriptive word
