Trade Marks Law And Trade Marks Registration

A trademark is a distinctive industrial property, which is again distinct from other forms of intellectual property. The basic purpose of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products or services.

The terms "mark", "brand" and "logo" are used to refer to "trademark". Referred to services, they are called service marks.

Patents and Copyrights will eventually enter the public domain but trademarks may not.

A Short History of IP and Trade Mark

The Intellectual Property Rights embodied in various Indian Acts are based almost entirely on the English and American Law with very little modifications. The development of trade mark law bagan in the United Kingdom. The Statute of Anne, was passed in England in 1710. It formed the basis for modern copyright laws. The Statute of Anne was used as a model for national laws in Denmark (1741), the United States (1790), and France (1793).

In 1617, Southern v. How, a prior case was summarised where a clothier had gained great reputation. He started putting his mark on clothes made by him. Another clothier used the same mark to deceive, resulting in a remedy from the courts.

The first Trade Mark Act was enacted in 1875. It codified the formulations courts had made in relation to property in trade mark. It recognised the principle of a right developing in a trade mark with usage. The Act provided for a register of trade marks. A trader using a mark could get it registered. Registration could be secured only on proof of user and fulfilment of criterion whether the trade mark distinguished the goods of the trader or not. Once a registration was secured, it became a proof of ownership in all court action for trade mark infringement, reducing the burden on the judicial system and the associated costs of litigation.

The first British trade mark Act of 1875 was repealed and substituted by the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883. This Act was substituted by the Trade Marks Act, 1905. The next re-enactment was the Trade Marks Act, 1938.

While the law on registration of trade marks and protection against infringement developed through statutory enactments, non-registered trade marks and appropriation of goodwill could sought remedy under the common law of passing off.

The first Indian Act on the subject as the Trade mark Act of 1940 was borrowed the British Trade Marks Act of 1938. The law provided for registration of trade marks and their protection from infringement. The Indian courts had already started giving remedy under common law of passing off.

Independent India brought in Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The Act was in operation till September, 2003. The operative law now is the Trade mark Act, 1999.

Trade mark protection in cases of unconnected goods:
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 recognises trade mark infringement, if it can be established that the infringed trade mark
has a reputation in India, even where a passing off action may not succeed. It was in the 1990s that the United States
enacted a law against trademark dilution. Even though the concept of dilution was being discussed in academic circles
in early 20th century, it was only later that the states began adopting such laws. The concept of dilution has a wider
reach than passing off.
If someone manufactures and sells 'Toyota Wheelchair', there would be no case of passing off, as no one is likely to
imagine that the Toyota company would manufacture wheelchair. But the use of Toyota in relation to wheelchair will certainly
hurt the reputation of Toyota ‘diluting’ the worth of Toyota trade mark and thus it would be unethical.

Paris Convention is the most basic and important multilateral convention relating to intellectual property, including trademarks, of which India is a member. It defined the meaning and scope of industrial property rights protection and established basic principles and rules.

In India priority in adoption prevails over priority in registration. The registration cannot take away a prior consistent user of trademark in India. In many other jurisdictions the first party to register a trademark is considered the party to own the mark, regardless of prior use of the mark.

Trademark law classifies marks into four categories, based on how distinctive they are. “Generic” marks get no trademark protection, and the same is true of “descriptive” marks unless they have acquired a “secondary meaning.” “Fanciful” or “arbitrary” marks get the most protection, and “suggestive” marks are second in priority. - McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §§ 11.1, 11.2 (4th ed. 1996); Playtex Products v. Georgia Pacific, 390 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2004).

The basic principle of trademark law is to fulfill the public policy objective of consumer protection, by preventing the public from being misled regarding the facts of origin or quality of a product or service. By identifying the commercial source of products and services, trademarks facilitate identification of products and services which meet the trust and expectations of consumers as to quality and other characteristics.

Trademarks may also serve as an incentive and encouragement to manufacturers, providers or suppliers to consistently provide quality products or services enabling them to maintain their business reputation. If a trademark owner does not maintain quality control and adequate supervision in relation to the manufacture and provision of products or services supplied by a licensee, there will be an adverse impact on the owner’s rights in the trademark.

A registered trademark confers the right to exclusive use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered. The law in most jurisdictions also allows the owner of a registered trademark to prevent unauthorised use of the mark in relation to products or services which are similar to the "registered" products or services, and  may also in certain cases, prevent use in relation to entirely dissimilar products or services.

A regisrered trademark owner will be in a better position to demonstrate its trademark rights and also be in a better position to enforce these rights through an trademark infringement action.

Unauthorised use of a registered trade mark need not be intentional in order for infringement to occur, although damages in an infringement lawsuit will generally be greater if there was an intention to deceive.

A trademark which is popularly used to describe a product or service (rather than to distinguish the product or services from those of third parties) is known as a genericized trademark. If such a mark becomes synonymous with that product or service to the extent that the trademark owner can no longer enforce its proprietary rights, the mark has become generic.

Proprietary rights in relation to a trademark may be established through actual use in the marketplace, or through registration of the mark with the trade marks office (or "trademarks registry") of a particular jurisdiction.

Some jurisdictions generally do not recognise trademarks rights arising through use (e.g. China). If trademark owners do not hold registrations for their marks in such jurisdictions, the extent to which they will be able to enforce their rights through trademark infringement proceedings will therefore be limited.

Some jurisdictions, particularly Common Law countries, offer protection for the business reputation or goodwill which attaches to unregistered trade marks through the tort of "passing off." Passing off may provide a remedy in instances where a business has been trading under an unregistered trade mark for a long time, and a rival business starts using the same or a similar mark.

Trademarks are generally territorial. Trademark rights that are established in a particular jurisdiction are generally only enforceable in that jurisdiction. Though there are international trademark laws and systems which facilitate the protection of trademarks in more than one jurisdiction

Books On Trademark Law:

1. Trade Mark Use
2. Trade Mark Law : A Practical Anatomy
3. The Historical Foundations of the Law Relating to Trade-Marks
4. Trademark: Legal Care for Your Business & Product Name
5. Trademark Law by Robert C. Lind
6. Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law
7. Trademark Law: A Practitioner's Guide
8. Trade Marks Law and Practice
9. Trademark & Copyright Disputes: Litigation Forms and Analysis
10. Trademark Dilution: Federal, State, and International Law
11. The Entrepreneur's Guide to Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade Secrets & Licensing
12. Don't be too descriptive with trademarks
13. Trademark Counterfeiting, Product Piracy, and the Billion Dollar Threat to the U.S. Economy

Trade Marks Case Law

A. & R. Biri Factory v. K. M. Sinha Brothers - Trademark Appeals against an ad interim injunction issued by the court below restraining the appellants from using the trade mark of the plaintiff respondent in respect of manufacture and sale of biries. Plaintiff respondent filed a suit against each of the two sets of defendants-appellants on these assertion. 1985 Allahabad High Court, IPR, India.
A. Hami Brothers v. Hami & Co. - Trademark Case petition for rectification of trade mark registered in the year 1964 in favour of respondent 1 and the proceedings are instituted under S.56(1) of the Trade Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.1985 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
A. R. Khaleel & Sons v. Registrar of Trade Mark in India - Appeal under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1940, briefly stated, are as follows. By a letter issued from the office of the Registrar the Applicant was directed to show cause as to why the registration of the mark should not be refused. 1963 Mysore High Court
A. Shanmugha Mudaliar v. A. Abdul Kareem - The plaintiff, a trader and manufacturer of beedies; whose mark is admittedly known as 'No. 4 Jadi Beedi' filed this action against the defendant who has designed a mark resembling in every material particular to his mark 'No. 4 Jadi Beedi'. 1975 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
A. T. Raja, Madras v. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works, Mysore - Trademark Case petitioner is carrying on business in manufacturing of Beedies under the Trademark 'Kubera Gajapathy Beedies'. The label that was being used by the plaintiff had the picture of Lord Ganesh in the centre with 'No. 711' written on either side of the picture. 1996 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
A. V. Rajadurai Nadar v. P. Ayya Nadar - Appeal from an order of Maharajan, J., who allowed the first respondent's appeal from an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. Both have been engaged in the manufacture of matches, the former from 1945 at Sivakasi and the latter from 1959 at Sattur. 1977 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Abdula v. Badrinarayan - Appeal with leave of this Court by the complainant, who alleged that the respondents were responsible for counterfeiting his trademark in respect of bidis and selling them under the same. 1962 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Agha Hyder Hussain v. Omar Khayyam Wineries (Pvt.) Ltd. - First Appellant had registered on January 1, 1970 a trademark 'Omar Khayyam Hotel Restaurant and Bar'. Respondent was called on by the Assistant Registrar to file any objections since it was using the mark 'Omar Khayyam Wineries (Private) Limited', but no objections were filed. 1977 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Ahutosh Das v. Keshab Chandra Ghosh - The complainant, it appears, inherited a business from his father, a concern of manufacturing weights and measures with a special trademark stamped on the various articles of weights and measures with the father's name incorporated in the design. 1936 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Ajay Plastic Industry v. Bata India Ltd - Review Petition on TM-57 filed by M/s. Bata India Limited to review the Order of Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. 1994 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Ajit Prasad Jain v. Amar Chemicals - Application under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, praying that the Trade Mark be cancelled/expunged from the Register of the Trade Marks.1994 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Ajit Singh v. Charan Singh Pardeshi - Appeal has been directed by Ajit Singh against the acquittal of Charan Singh recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur in complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 1974 Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Alkem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Alchem (India) Ltd. - By this motion by the plaintiffs, the defendants are sought to be restrained by an injunction order from using the word 'Alchem' or any other name deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' name 'ALKEN' as part of defendants' trading style, and/or corporate name so as to pass off the goods. 1999 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Allergan Inc. v. Milment Optho Industries - Application by the plaintiff for an order restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'OCUFLOX' in respect of their ophthalmic drug in a passing-off action. OCUFLOX had transborder reputation and public confusion was possible since Appellant had intent to use the mark in India. 1997 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Amar Chand Om Prakash v. Moriga Perfumery and Floor Mills - Suit alleging infringement of registered trade mark MAHAVIR CHHAP with device of Hanuman. Plaintiff prays for relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in respect of plaintiff's trade mark and copyright pending the hearing and disposal of the suit. 1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Amar Singh Chawalwala v. Shree Wardhman Rice & General Mills - Plaintiff firm is engaged in the selection, processing and marketing of rice since the year 1952. Dispute regarding Golden Qilla and Lal Qilla (words per se), and also the device of Qilla and Lal Qilla as its trade marks. 1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Amar Suitings Ltd v. Amar Syntex Pvt. Ltd - Appeal is against the order of the Additional District Judge whereby application filed by plaintiff for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendant to use 'AMTEX SUITINGS' similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'AMARTEX SUITINGS' with logo of galloping horse, has been dismissed. 2000 Punjab & Haryana High Court.
American Home Products Inc. & Wyeth Labs Ltd. v Lupin Labs - Defendants deny confusion as TOROLAC, sold under prescription was distinct phonetically and in trade dress from ROLAC. It was held that resemblance between marks was structural, visual and phonetic and injunction was granted in favour of plaintiffs. 1995 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
American Home Products Corporation vs. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. - Appeal has been filed pursuant to a certificate given under sub-clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 prior to the substitution of that clause by a new clause (1) Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972 by the Calcutta High Court, India, against its judgment and order.
Amrit Soap Company v. New Punjab Soap Factory - Plaintiff, in a suit based on infringement of trade marks, copyright, passing off and for rendition of accounts of profits has filed this application seeking to restrain the defendant during the pendency of suit from manufacturing, selling, or otherwise dealing in washing soap under the trade mark 'BILLY'.1989 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Amrutanjan Ltd. v. Ashwin Fine Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals - The Plaintiffs being the proprietor of the trademark 'AMRUTANJAN', started about eighty years ago in manufacturing and selling goods covered under the abovesaid trademark and got registered before the Trade Mark Registry situated at Haddows Road, Madras- 6.1991 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Anglo French Drug Pvt. Ltd. v. R. D. Timakar - Appeal from a decision of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks under S. 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1940. 1959 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Anjendra Kumar Aggarwal v. M/s. Kruzer Herbals - Suit against two defendants for an injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and injunction on the ground of passing off. The product invented and manufactured by the plaintiff and the first defendant are Ayurvedic medicines. 1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Annaco Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashoo Enterprises - Application for registration of a trade mark COMFORT (word per se) in part B of the register in class 20 in respect of steel furniture, nursery furniture and baby cradles. 2001 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Anneliese Huckmann v. Registrar of Trade Marks - Whether the word 'Patentex' could be registered as a trademark in reference to the contraceptives manufactured by petitioners. 1962 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Apple Computer Inc., USA v Apple Leasing & Industries - Applicant filed a suit for infringement of trading style and passing off by the respondent's misuse of the words "Apple Computer". The respondent advertised services under "Apple Computer Education". Interim injunction granted. 1991 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Aravind Laboratories v. Padmini Products - Application by the plaintiff for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent - first defendant from passing off his goods as the goods of the plaintiff by selling or offering for sale his kum kum products in containers of the same get-up, size, shape and labelling as that of the plaintiff.1986 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Asclepius Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Asphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd - Application under the trade mark ASCLEPIUS in class 5 in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The mark was ordered to be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and accordingly it was advertised in Journal.1992 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Asha Soap Factory v. Dhanthak & Co. - Appeal from order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Courts, Bombay, in Notice of Motion taken out by Respondent No. 1. The facts and circumstances under which the present appeal came to be preferred are that the plaintiffs filed a suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction.1985 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Asso Auto Accessories Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ess Pee Auto Enterprises - Suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing with auto electrical parts etc. under the trade mark ASCO. The claim is based on the following allegations.1989 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Associated Electronics v. Sharp Kabushik Kaisha - Trademark Case petition for grant of interim suspension of the order of stay granted by the Deputy Registrar. 1992 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. v. Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff filed this suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using their trade mark 'ATLAS' or any other mark or name deceptively or confusingly similar to the said mark and for rendition of accounts etc. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Automatic Electric Ltd v. R. K. Dhawan - Application under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure connected with grant of temporary injunctions is favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants seeking to restrain the defendants from infringing and passing off the trade mark 'DIMMERSTAT' of the plaintiff.1999 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Avis International Ltd. v. Avis Footwear Industries - Plaintiff sought to get an injunction restraining the defendant for using the trademark AVI. "What is the element required to prove non-use in a trademark." "Whether an injunction could be issued even when rectification proceedings were pending on the ground of non-use" 1991 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Avtar Singh v. M/s. K. M. Products - Plaintiff has filed suit against two defendants for injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in Ribbons and other allied and cognate goods under the trade mark TOTA MAINA label, from passing off his goods, as the goods of the plaintiff and also from infringing the plaintiff's Trade Mark in Class 26. 1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
B. N. & Company v. Burman General Store - Appellant has assailed the impugned order by which perpetual injunction has been granted against appellant and challenging the order for rendition of accounts of profit and also challenging the order for delivering-up the infringing labels and marks etc. for destruction. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
B. S. Ramappa and another v. B. Monappa - Appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, registering a trade mark in the name of B. Monappa, the first respondent in the appeal. Monappa and the first appellant B. S. Ramappa are the sons the late B. Ramappa, Monappa being the elder son.
Bakeman Industries Ltd v. Parle Products Ltd. - Interlocutory Trademark Case petition filed by the registered. proprietors with a prayer that the rectification proceedings be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The registered proprietors have requested that the matter may be transferred to High Court of Bombay for final disposal.1999 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Baker Hughes Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Hiroo Khushlani - Appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court Pursuant to an Agreement between the Appellants and 1st Respondent, the 1st Respondent was permitted to form a Private Company and use the name 'Baker' as a part of its corporate name. Thus, 2nd Respondent Company was incorporated.
Ballabhdas Bitthaldas v. Mohommad Mugni Abdul Qadir - Plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff firm has been using the term 'SUN BRAND' as its trade mark in relation to its product. 1993 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Banwaridas Pugalia v. Colgate Palmolive Co. - Appeal under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 from a decision by the learned Deputy Registrar. By the said decision the learned Deputy Registrar has refused the application of the appellant for grant of a trademark consisting of the word 'FORMIS' in Class 3 in respect of 'Cosmetics'. 1979 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Basha v. Shaik Hyder - Appeal, against the injunction granted by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Respondent is a manufacturer of 'Beedi' called by its trade name 'Nehru Beedi' since February 1966. It is claimed that the commodity is very popular and has gained tremendous 'good will'. 1985 Karnataka High Court.
Bayer A.G. and Anr. v Ajay Jain - Plaintiffs allege infringement of their trademark BAYER and VULKANOX/VULKANOX HS by the defendants. Defendants denied infringement. Permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs with costs. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. Denuer Chemical Manufacturing Co., & other - Appeal is against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks refusing an application by the appellant, Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd., for registration of the word 'B. I. Phlogiston' in white on a dark background with the name of the appellant, Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. 1959 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Bestochem Formulations v. Dinesh Ayurvedic Agencies - Suit by plaintiff against the defendants seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off of their trademark. The defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, and C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint on various grounds raised in the application. 1999 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Bharat Enterprises v. Lall Gopi Industries - Appeal filed by Bharat Enterprises (India) against the interim order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. 1999 Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Bharat Zarda Factory v. Munshi Ram Tilak Ram - 1990 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Bhim Sain and another v. Janta Naswar Factory - Appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 is directed against an order of the Assistant Registrar, 1975 rejecting application of the appellant for registration of their Trade Mark.1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Bimal Govindji Shah v. Pannalal Chandulal - Praying for perpetual injunction against the defendant, restraining passing off the trademark of the plaintiff and also for damages and rendition of accounts. Plaintiff bona fide and honestly adopted and conceived the trade mark 'Flora'. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Binatone International Ltd v. Sugan Kitchenware Appliances - For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark 'BINATONE' in respect of pressure cookers and other such goods manufactured by the defendants and further restraining the defendants from passing off their goods as that of the plaintiffs. 1992 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Bindal Toys v. M/s. Gemini Toys - Gemini Toys, a manufacturer of toys applied for registration of trademark consisting of 'GEMINI TOYS' and letters 'GMT' with device of two lions. The application was opposed by Bindal Toys. The trademark of Bindal Toys was 'Bindal TOYS' with device of two boys holding a Bigul. 1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Bio-Chem Pharmaceutical Industries v. Astron Pharmaceuticals - Appeal is against an order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing Opposition of the appellant and allowing the registration of the trade mark BICILLIN in Class 5. The trademark of the appellant is 'BIOCILIN' while the trade mark of the respondent is 'BICILLIN'. 2003 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Biofarma v. Sanjay Medical Store - Suit instituted by the plaintiffs praying for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trade mark 'trivedon' or any other trade mark which is deceptively similar with the trade mark 'flavedon' of the plaintiffs and for infringement of trade mark and passing off damages. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Borosil Glass Works v O.P. Batra - Plaintiff was granted injunctive relief in a suit for passing off of its registered trademark BOROSIL by defendant. The defendant applied for a vacation of the injunction under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Deciding against the defendant. 1998 High Court of Delhi, IPR, India.
Brij Mohan Dutta v. M/s. Jallo Subsidiary Industries Co. Appeal from an order granting an interim injunction against the appellant prohibiting him from using the trademark 'Double Elephant' or anything deceptively similar to the mark of the respondent plaintiff. Both the trademarks have been registered and for the same product. 1990 Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Brij Mohan Lal Garg v. Madan Mohan Lal Garg - Both these Trademark Case petitioners are directed against an order of Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks partly allowing the application for registration of Trade Mark consisting of word 'Shankar' in class 7 in respect of the specification 'Sugarcane Crusher'. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Brodely Laboratories v. Sigma Laboratories - Trademark UTEROSED in respect of 'Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Preparations' for menstrual disorders' included in Class-5. Objections were raised by the Registry and after compliance thereof the mark was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal.1992 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Brook Bond India Ltd. v. C. Patel & Co. - Law in regard to the grant of interlocutory injunction in an infringement action is now well-settled both in this country and in England. Lord Denning in Hubbard vs. Vosper, observed: 'In considering whether to grant an interlocutory injunction, the right course for Judge is to look at the whole case. 1992 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Brundaban Sahu v. B. Rajendra Subudhi - Trademark Case petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phulbany against the Trademark Case petitioner for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 1986 Orissa High Court.
Bundi Porland Cement Ltd., v. Abdul Hussein - The defendant sold in Bombay and other Indian markets in bags bearing three letters 'BBB' on them with the word 'Portland' above such letters and the word 'Cement' below them. The plaintiff's cement is well known in the market as the 'BBB' brand, or the 'tin B' or 'tun B' brand.1936 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
C&J Clark International Ltd v. Clarks Sports Shoe Factory - Plaintiff wants to use the trademark CLARKS represented in script form. The trademark is registered in many countries of the world including India. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd., v. Union of India - Court had called upon the learned counsel for the Trademark Case petitioner to satisfy how this Trademark Case petition which is filed against an interlocutory order is maintainable. 1999 Gujarat High Court, IPR, India.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Instance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 Gujarat High Court
Calvin Klein Inc. v. International Apparel Syndicate - Passing off action. Trademark Case petitioner gets its name from its promoter Calvin Klein. He is a fashion designer. Before the Trademark Case petitioner was incorporated Mr. Klein designed and sold men's and women's apparel and accessories under the mark Calvin Klein or CK. Injunction granted. 1994 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Camlin Pvt Ltd. v. National Pencil Industries - Appeal against the composite order passed by the Single Judge rejecting the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action against the defendant and simultaneously dismissing the application filed by plaintiff/appellant seeking temporary injunction against the defendant. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Camlin Pvt Ltd. v. National Pencil Industries - Plaintiff cannot claim any copyright on any carton that has been mechanically produced by a printing process as the work cannot be said to have originated from the author. The plaintiff is the registered owner of trademark. 1998 Dehli High Court
Capital Meters Ltd. v. B. P. Electric - Suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts etc. The plaintiff company claims to manufacture and market electric goods, falling in Clause 9 of Fourth Schedule of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, under the trade mark CAPITAL since 1986. 2000 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Carew Phipson v. Desjay Distilleries - Action for passing off and for infringement of copyright, the plaintiffs have filed the present Notice of Motion for interim reliefs. 1994 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Cariter International B. V. Ltd. Co v. Ramesh Kumar Sawhney - Plaintiff company seeking temporary injunction in the suit against the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' trade mark 'Cartier' registered in Class 16, by use of the impugned trade mark 'Cartier' in relation to pens, pencils and other stationery articles. 1933 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Carter Wallace Inc. v. Modi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. - For perpetual injunction against infringing the plaintiff's trade mark NEAIR and NAIR for cosmetics in relation to goods covered by classes 3 and 5. Defendants barred from infringing use of the trademarks and passing off of the plaintiff's goods. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Castrol Ltd. and Castrol India Ltd v Subhas Kapoor - Trademark and trade dress infringement of INDROL, for automotive lubricants and passing off action. Court restrains defendants from using the words INDOL and INDEROIL in connection with their goods. Interim injunction confirmed and appeal by defendants dismissed. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Castrol Limited & Anr. v Prem Gupta - Plaintiff sought an injunction restraining defendant from infringing the CASTROL trademark and copyright and from passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff. Suit was ordered to proceed ex parte. Injunctive relief and damages granted to the plaintiff. 1999 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Castrol Limited & Anr. v A.K. Mehta - Appellants alleged infringement of CASTROL trademark, trade dress and design, copyright in container get up, by respondents' BESTROL product. Respondents claimed honest concurrent user, laches and acquiescence on appellant's part. Compromise settlement does not preclude grant of injunction. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Castrol Limited & Anr. v. Shankarlal Nagwani - Suit by plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs and to restrain the defendants from manufacturing and selling tin containers, caps and plastic caps under the trademark 'Castrol' and logo or selling the same in the market. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Castrol Ltd. & Ors. v. Mukesh Kumar - Suit has been filed by the plaintiff inter alia stating that plaintiff No.1 Castrol Limited was a Company incorporated under the laws of England. Plaintiff No.2 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, carrying on business in processing and trading in high grade lubricants etc. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Jorange & Another - Appeal from the Order of a Single Judge disallowing an Application for temporary injunction against the defendants on the ground that the defendants passing off their goods as those of the Plaintiff. Passing off of apparel under the brand names of 'Caterpillar' and 'Cat' found and confusion existed. 1998 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Cattle Remedies v. Shri Nath Garg Registrar of the Trade Marks - Trademark Case petitioner filed this petition for cancellation of the registered trade marks n class 5 on the ground that the registrations were obtained by respondent No.1 by concealing material facts and making false statements and misrepresentations and the same are in contravention of the TM Act, 1958. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
CEAT Tyres of India Ltd v. Jai Industrial Services - Application seeking temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. An interim injunction order already stands granted in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a proprietor of trade mark 'CEAT' in respect of pneumatic and solid tyres for vehicles. 1991 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Chand Fabricators (P) Ltd. v. Geeta Food Products - Plaintiff is carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing bread and is using the trademark 'MELROSE' for manufacturing and marketing. The plaintiff is not only having the said trade mark but also is also having a distinctive wrapper. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Chandra Bhan Agarwal v. Arjundas Agarwal - Appeal from the judgment and order of S. C. Ghose, J. on an application under Section 107 of the Trade and Mer­chandise Marks Act, 1958 passed on Feb­ruary 26, 1973. The respondents who are partners of H. P. Textile Mills carry on business in their firm in hosiery goods. 1979 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Chandra Bhan Dembla Trading v. Bharat Sweing Machine Co. - Parties, both registered users, have been manufacturing and marketing sewing machines under the trademark 'Sainik' and 'Harsha'. While parties are in dispute as to who is the earlier user, they agree that rectification proceedings at instance of both parties are still pending.1982 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Chandrasekharan v. Babu Machine Works - Trademark Case petitioner is carrying on business in hand pumps for pumping water under the trade mark 'Sun'. 1997 Madras High Court
Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Deepharma Limited - Suit for permanent injunction and damages etc. was filed, inter alia, alleging that one of the pharmaceutical preparations namely ALSAREX manufactured and sold by the plaintiff is meant to heal ulcers. 1998 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Charkha Soap Mills v. Darshan Soap Factory - Trademark Case petition under Section 109(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act has been filed by the petitioner who was opponent in the matter of application filed by the respondent seeking for registration of trade mark 'UPHAR'. 2000 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Chhattar Extractions Ltd. V. Kochar Oil Mills Ltd. - Appeal by the Defendants, Chattar Extractions Limited against the Order of Judge in Interlocutory Appeal. The Order was passed under Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure and a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the Respondent-Plaintiff.1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Chimanlal Narsaji Suhan v. Parasmal Mithalal Parmar - Plaintiff praying for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from using in relation to milk cans and buckets the trademarks bearing devices of Cow and/or Ox or words COW BRAND and/or OX BRAND in any manner whatsoever so as to infringe the plaintiff's trademark. 1997 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Ciba Geigy Ltd & Anr v Crosslands Research Labs Ltd. (Delhi High Court) - Plaintiffs allege infringement and passing off of their mark VOLTAREN. Defendants restrained from using VOLTA-K since confusion was possible and VOLTAREN had transborder reputation. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Ciba Geigy Ltd & Anr v Crosslands Research Labs Ltd. (Madras High Court) - Suit for trademark infringement and passing off by plaintiffs. Division Bench sets aside order of single judge holding that there was infringement of plaintiffs' registered trademark EMULGEL. Appeal was allowed and temporary injunction was granted. 1995 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Classic Electrical v. Polo Plastics Limited - Suit for permanent injunction against act of passing off and damages. The plaintiff adopted the trademark POLO label on 1st day of April 1991 in relation to electrical appliances, electrical accessories and sittings and has been continuously using the same. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Cluett Peabody & Co. Inc. v Arrow Apparels - The defendant, Arrow Apparels issued cease and desist notice to the plaintiff and plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark and tradename infringement and passing off. The object of the Trademark Act is not to promote monopoly of a trademark that has been registered but not used for 30 years. 1997 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. M/s. Hindustan Rimmer - This application has been moved seeking condonation of delay made in filing the appeal, The appeal has been brought under Section 309 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Conopco Ind. v. Banwari Lal Trading As Cosmic Chemicals (India) - Trademark Case petitioner has taken exception to an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks whereby he accepted the application in class 3 for the purpose of registration of the trade mark 'PONAS' and dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Coromandel Cements Ltd. - Application praying to amend the plaint by re-instating the prayer regarding passing off the defendant's goods as and for the goods of the plaintiff by use of the Trade Mark 'Coromandel Cements' or any other mark deceptively similar thereto.1986 Madras High Court
Crystal Knitters v. Bomay Vestors - Suit filed by plaintiff under section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, for a declaration that the threat by the defendant against the plaintiff using the trade mark 'COSTAL' in connection with its hosiery goods is unjustified and a permanent injunction restraining defendant from continuing the said threat. 1986 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Cycle Corporation of India v. T. I. Raleigh - Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of dismissal passed by a learned Judge of this Court on an application under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 1958 for removing 12 Trade Marks from the Register of Trade Marks and for cancellation of those Marks. 1995 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
D. Adinaryana Setty v. Brooke Bond Tea of India Ltd - Held that, plea of honest and concurrent use can be raised only after registration. Since the appellant is unregistered user, and have raised plea of honest and current use against infringement, he has to prove his bonafides by applying for registration as concurrent user. 1960 Mysore High Court
Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited - The plaintiff is a leading manufacturer of a large range of pharmaceutical products, toiletries, ayurvedic and other medicinal preparations. The plaintiff is manufacturing and marketing its products under the brand name 'Dabur', which is a well-known brand in India and abroad.
Daffodils Perfumes & Chemical Industries v. Daffodil Chemical (P) Ltd. - Suit for perpetual injunction complaining of infringement of plaintiff's trademark and passing off by the defendants. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Daimler Benz Aktigesellschaft v. Hybo Hindustan - Defendant adopted the name of 'Benz' for the undergarments it sold in boxes with the representation of a man with his legs separated and hands joined together above his shoulder within a circle, diluting the world famous Mercedes Benz trade mark of a three pointed star within a circle. 1994 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Dalip Chand Aggarwal & others v. M/s. Escort Ltd. - Respondent obtained registration of the trademark 'Escorts' in 1961 for Class 9 goods under Schedule 4. The appellant, entitled under Section 33 was granted registration of the word 'Escort' for Class 9 goods in 1963 under Section 12(3) as the appellant had been using the mark since 1958. 1981 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Deepam Silk International v. Deepam Silks - Trademark appeals are filed against the common order in OS by the First Addl. District Judge, Mysore. Both the plaintiff and defendant have filed appeals questioning the impugned order. 1997 Arb. L. R. 443 Karnataka High Court.
Delhi Fabrics and Fabika Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Bina Silk Mills - Application under the trademarks consisting of the word FABIKA in respect of suitings, shirtings and dress materials of all kinds included in class 24. Objections were raised by the Trade Marks Registry and after compliance thereof the mark was advertised before acceptance. 1992 Delhi High Court
Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs. M.S.S. Food Products - Original suit was filed by the respondent herein for a declaration that the defendants do not have any right to sell Pan Masala, Gutkha, Supari and Supari Mix or any other goods under the trade mark 'Manikchand' which is deceptively similar to the mark 'Malikchand' used by the plaintiff.
Dolphin Laboratories Pvt. v. Kaptab Pharmaceuticals - In dispute in this suit is a drug known as 'Amokytid hydrate'. The plaintiff, a private limited company, has its registered office in Calcutta and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of medicines and pharmaceuticals products. 1981 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Dolphin Laboratories Ltd v Arun Kumar Bansal (Dolphin Organics Ltd.) - Defendants restrained from using DOLPHIN as part of trade name and from raising money from the public under the impugned corporate name. On appeal by defendants, order was passed allowing defendants to continue with their public issue on certain conditions. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
E. R. Squibb & Sons Inc. v. Curewel India Ltd - Plaintiff, E. R. Squibb & Inc., filed this suit against the defendant, Curewel (India) Ltd., for a permanent injunction against the defendant restraining it from selling in any manner its product under the brand name 'Curechlor'. 1987 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. G. & G. Pharmaceuticals - Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the trial court should have also extended the interim order in respect of the Union territory of Delhi, States of Punjab and Haryana.1991 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. G. G. Pharmaceuticals - Application taken out by the plaintiff/petitioner for an order of injunction restraining the defendant from in any way using the impugned mark Sulphacetamide Eye Drops 20% B.P. or any other mark similar to the petitioner's registered trade mark Locula Sulphacetamide Eye Drops. Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Ellofix Industries v. M's. Steel Bord Industries & others - Case relates to provision of Sec.3 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the plaintiff firm is proprietor of 5 trademarks 'ELOFIC' in respect of motor parts, oil and fuel filters for automobiles. 1985 Dehi High Court.
Essco Sanitations v. Mascot Industries - Question for determination in this application under Order XXI, Rule 32, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is whether the mark 'OSSO' adopted by the respondents and judgement-debtors is deceptively similar to the registered trade mark 'ESSCO'.1982 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Essel Packaging v. Essel Tea Exporters - Suit filed for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from using the word 'ESSEL' as part of the corporate name of the Defendants 'Essels Tea Exports Limited. The suit is for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the word 'ESSEL'. 1998 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Etona Company Ltd. v. Jakeman Engineering and Manuf. Co. - Plaintiff in suit has claimed a decree for injunction restraining defendants 1 to 14 from manufacturing or selling, and trading in any manner, in staples and stapler pins bearing the trade mark ETONA which are not the manufacture of the plaintiff. 1996 - Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Exxon Corporation v. Exxon Packing System Pvt. Ltd. - 1989 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
F.A.B. Axles (P) Ltd. v. F.A.G. Rugelfischer George Schafer - Appeal by the defendant is against an order passed on 4.2.1997 by learned single Judge. On 4.2.1997 learned single Judge passed the following orders in the suit as well in the two misc. applications.1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Fenner India Ltd. v. Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - The appellant instituted a suit against the respondent claiming that the respondents were passing off Fenner's copyright in their logo. The relief sought by the plaintiff was for rendition of accounts and injunction. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Feroz & Company v. Bharat Lock House - Application for registration of trade mark PLAZA in respect of water taps made of brass and sanitary fittings included in Class 11. Applicant claimed the user of the mark applied for. 2001 Trade Marks Registry, Delhi.
Firm Bhagwan Das Ramji Lal v. Watkins Mayor & Co. - This revision arises out of an order made by the District Judge of Jullundur in a suit brought by Messrs Watkins Mayor. The allegation of the plaintiff company was that they were manufacturers of chaff-cutting knives, to which they affixed as their trade mark.1947 Lahore High Court
Firm Mohanlal Harprasad v. Firm Lal Mohammad - Appeal is by the plaintiff against the order passed by Shri S. M. Pagnis, District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit, granting a temporary injunction to the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on certain terms. The plaintiff questions the terms. 1962 Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Fleming (India) v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd - Trademark appeals by the plaintiffs in passing off actions in respect of certain pharmaceutical and veterinary products, are directed against the order of the learned Judge dismissing their applications for interim injunctions and vacating the injunction earlier granted by him restraining the defendants.1991 Madras High Court
Flower Tobacco Company v. Ambar Tobacco Company - Second appeal filed under Section 109(5) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 seeking to challenge the order passed by single judge in appeal preferred under sub-section (3) of Section 109 of the Act against the order passed by Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi. 2001 Delhi High Court
Flower Tobacco Company v. State - The parties to the dispute are engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of tobacco for Hukkah. The dispute is in respect of a trade mark 'ABBU DALLA', device of a pot and copyright in artistic work namely printing on the container used for packing tobacco.1986 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Forward Auto Industries v. Brakes International - Order disposes of the interlocutory petition filed by petitioners/opponents who have opposed the registration of trade marks FINEX sought to be registered by respondents/applicants. 2002 Trade Mark Registry Delhi
Fosroc International Ltd v. The Structural Water-Proofing Co. Pvt. Ltd - Application by the defendant for an order staying the suit filed by Fosroc International Limited and another pending the disposal of the proceedings pending before the Registrar. 1992 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Gajra Gears Ltd v. Garha Gears Ltd - Plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from using it's trade mark or sell any goods bearing the words 'Garha' and/or 'Garha Gears', and also from passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff by the use of words 'Garha', 'Garha Gears' and/or any other similar words in its corporate name.1993 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Galfa Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Rekvina Pharmaceuticals - Application in class 5 for registration of a trade mark FENMOL was filed claiming user of the mark. The application was accepted and duly advertised. 1993 Trade Mark Registry.
Ganga Engineering Works v Ganga Foundry - Application for stay of suit claiming invalidity of trademark. - Lower court's order dismissing the application that under Section 111(1) of the Trademarks Act, it was not open to the petitioner to seek stay of proceedings was upheld. 1994 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Garden Perfume (P) Ltd v. Anand Soap & Detergents - Trademark Case petitioner had adopted the trademark 'RAINY' in respect of soaps and they are the proprietors of this trademark. It is alleged that the defendant has dishonestly copied the trademark of the plaintiff.1994 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd v. Vasdev Motwani - Revision petition filed Plaintiff assails the correctness of an order passed by Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, whereby appeal filed by respondent herein, against dismissal of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure by the Subordinate Judge, was allowed.1988 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Gazipur Chemical Works v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks - Appeal from the decision of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to refuse the application of the appellant for registration. 1979 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
G. D. Searle & Co. & Anr. v Medigraphs Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff sued defendant for infringement of their registered pharmaceutical trademark LOMOTIL with the mark "Slotil". The syllables "Lomo" and "Slo" prefixed to the marks are distinctly different and, therefore, there is no finding of confusing similarity. 1998 Bombay High Court, India
Geep Flashlight Industries v. Registrar of Trademarks - Appellant contended that the word 'Janta' is quite distinct from the word 'Janta' and that in Hindi the word 'Janta' meant knowledge and that it was in that sense that the word was used in the Appellant's proposed trademark. There is hardly any substance in this contention.1972 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Geepee Ceval Proteins and Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Saroj Oil Industry - Plaintiff has filed this application for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or dealing in edible oil under the trade mark “CHAMBAL” or any other trade mark or packing material amounting to passing off the trademark of the plaintiffs.
George Lillington And Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Prestige Paints - Suit against M/s. Prestige Paints and another seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs registered copyright by using the offending lay out, design, colour scheme on the packings, used by the plaintiffs. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. - Order of Single Judge granting interim injunction against the appellant restraining it from manufacturing or selling goods relation to the trade mark 'Super Cup Tea' or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the trade mark 'Super Cup' has been challenged by the appellant.1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Girnar Tea and another v. Brooke Bond (India) Ltd - 2nd Plaintiffs manufacture and deal in tea which was marketed under the trade mark 'GIRNAR'. They marketed the tea in cartons. Plaintiffs assigned the mark 'GIRNAR' to the 1st Plaintiffs. 1st plaintiffs sold the tea in pouches and reverted to cartons which also bore the mark.1990 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Glaxo Ind.v.Ambrosia Remedies Pvt. Ltd. - Application for registration of the mark EXPELLER in class 5 in respect of medicinal, pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations. 2002 Trade Mark Registry Ahmedabad
Glaxo India Ltd. & Anr. v. Drug Laboratories - Plaintiff is the owner of registered trademark GLAXO of Glaxo India Limited Company incorporated under the laws of England. Apart from this the plaintiff has been using the mark GLAXO in a special manner, which has an artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Glaxo Operations UK Ltd. Middlesex (England) v. Samrat Pharamaceuticals - Case involving a trademark infringement allegation by Glaxo. The Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter. 1984 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Glen Raven Mills Inc. v. Vaspar Concepts Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff is a Corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of North Carolina in the United States of America. One of its division is Custom Fabrics Division which manufacture Awning, marine and furniture fabrics under its trade mark 'SUNBRELLA'. 1996 - Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Globe Super Parts v. Blue Star Flam Industries - Plaintiff manufactures and markets various gas appliances under the trade mark 'SUPERFLAME'. It is not a registered trade mark. By an interim application the plaintiff has sought an order restraining the defendants from using the said trade name and acting in any manner to pass off their goods.1984 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Vs. Girnar Food and Beverages (P) Ltd. - Appellant sells tea under what it calls 'an umbrella trade mark', namely, 'Tea City'. According to the appellant there are different kinds of tea which are sold under this umbrella trade mark with specific trade marks in respect of particular kinds of tea. One of the kinds of tea is 'SUPER CUP'.
Goel Pocket Books v. Raja Pocket Books - Appellant have through the present appeal taken exception to the judgment and order passed by an Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he allowed an application moved by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Gold Seal Engg. Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Manufactures - Suit against defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'Gold Star' or the 'Seal' device or the caricature of a mechanic boy with or without the words 'Kartik Mistry' so as to infringe the mark. 1991 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Gold Star Co. Ltd., Korea v Gold Star Industries - Infringement and passing off of registered trademark GOLDSTAR - Plaintiffs claims special circumstances for non-use. Plaintiff's had primafacie case. Defendants restrained from using the trademark GOLDSTAR for goods covered by the plaintiff's registration 1994 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Gopal Hossiery v. The Dy. Registrar of Trade Marks - Appeal under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 by Gopal Hossiery, a registered partnership firm. The petitioner started the business in 1936 as manufacturers and dealers of hosiery goods. The respondent No. 3, carries on business under the name Joykali Hossiery.1981 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Gopal Krishan v. Mex Switchgear (P) Ltd. & another - Appeal filed under Section 109(5) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 wherein the appellant, has challenged the correctness of the Order of a Single Judge has upheld the decision of the Deputy Registrar of the Trade Marks withdrawing the acceptance of the Application.1992 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
GTC Industries Ltd. v. ITC Limited - Appellant applied for registration of the word mark 'WINNER'. Two years later the respondent No. 1 applied for registration of the mark 'WINEX. A few days after that the appellant filed an application for registration of the trademark label 'WINNER (referred to as the second application). 1993 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Gujral Traders v. Waxpol Industries Ltd - For rectification. 1991 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Gulam Ibrahim & Others v. Basheer Ahmed - Trademark Case petitioner who is the accused makes the complaint that there was a misapplication of Section 92 of the 1958 Act, and that the prosecution was really governed by the provisions of the repealed Act. 1970 Mysore High Court.
Gupta Enterprises v. M/s. Gupta Enterprises - It cannot be disputed that registration of trademark gives to registered proprietor the exclusive right to use the said trademark in connection with the goods registered. If there is any invasion of this right by any person the registered proprietor can protect his right by opposing the same. 1998 Dehli High Court.
Gupta Industries v. M/s. Gupta Enterprises - Trademark Case petitioner filed opposition to application of the respondent herein for registration of the trademark 'GUPTA'. The Registrar after considering all the grounds came to the conclusion that the opposition has to be allowed and the application of the respondent in Class 9 should be refused for registration. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Gupta Industries, Gurdaspur v. Mr. Gupta Enterprises, B.S.F. - Review application on form TM-57 filed by petitioners who have opposed the registration of the application in respect of trade mark GUPTA sought to be registered by respondents. 2003 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg) Company Ltd. v. The State - Complaint u/ss 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, alleging therein that the complainant. company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of suitings and shirtings being textile goods.1986 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
H. C. L. Ltd. v. I. T. & T. Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any representation which may amount to claiming any association, licence, sponsorship or authority from the plaintiff and from using the trade mark/name HCL in relation to the business of the defendant. 1998 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hardie Trading Limited & Anr. v. Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd. - Appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 by appellants, from order passed by the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks, Calcutta, allowing three applications of Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd. for rectification of the marks.1990 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Hardit Singh Santokh Singh Rice Mills v. Sadhu Singh Gurdip Singh - Review Petition on form TM-57 by M/s. Sadhu Singh Gurdip Singh.1993 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hariram Gulab Rai v. Amarjeet & Bros. - Amarjeet & Bros. applied for registration of trade mark in the form of label consisting of the words 'GULAB BRAND' with device of rose vide application in respect of brooms in class 21. 1999 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Harkaran Dass Deep Chand v. Action Detergents - Application under Order 39 Rule 4 is filed by the defendant for vaction of the order of injunction granted by this Court whereby the defendants were restrained from using the trade mark KRANTI in respect of washing soap. The plaintiff claims to be using the trade mark KRANTI since the year 1977. 1986 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hastimal Jain Trading v. Registrar of Trade Marks - In all these matters the questions referred to the Full Bench are: Whether Rule 53 (2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules 1959 is directory or mandatory, Whether the Registrar's power to extend the time for filing evidence in support of the opposition stands extinguished. 2000 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Sonia Kitchenware Industries - Suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's 'Hawkins' and also for passing off the goods of the defendant as that of the plaintiff and also for rendition of accounts. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hawpar Brothers International Limited, Singapore v Tiger Balm Co. Pvt. Ltd. - Registration is no defence in an action for passing off. Court sets aside the Registrar's order refusing to rectify. Use of the words "Tiger Balm" in the trading style or corporate name by the defendants should be accompanied by a disclaimer. 1995 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Hedges & Butler Ltd. v. Mohan Meakin Ltd. & Ors. - Trademark Case petitioner has preferred an appeal in this court under Section 109(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Act as against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi. 1999 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Helpage India v. Helpage Garhwal - I. A. filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff and I. A. filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC by the defendant for vacation of the order. 2001 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks - Appeal came up for hearing before Chief Justice and S. R. Dad Gupta J. The learned Judges differed on certain points. In accordance with Cl. 36, Letters Patent, the learned judges stated the points on which they have differed. 1955 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Hindustan Lever Ltd v. Bombay Soda Factory - Appellants were the plaintiffs in Origin Suit on the file of the learned district Judge, Bellary. They sought injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademark detailed in the plaint and from passing off their goods as those of the plaintiffs. 1964 Mysore High Court.
Hindustan Lever Ltd v. Susi Chemical Pvt. Ltd. - Suit for permanent injunction and for rendition of accounts.1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hindustan Machines v. Royal Electrical Appliances - Suit praying for the issuance of a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of the trade mark 'Maharaja' of the plaintiff and for rendition of accounts. 2000 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hindustan Pencil Ltd v. Aptudet Industries - Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff praying for ad interim injunction against the defendant from interfering, offering or advertising, directly or indirectly, under the trade mark NATRAJ and device of NATRAJ, or passing off. 1991 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hindustan Pencil Ltd. v. Swaroop Singh - This suit is with regard to the infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff and passing off of the goods of the defendant as those of the plaintiff. 1994 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hindustan Radiators Co. v. M/s. Hindustan Radiators Ltd. - Plaintiff has been manufacturing radiators since 1859 under the name 'HINDUSTAN RADIATOR' and initials 'H.R'. The plaintiff has acquired a wide reputation for its good quality products for many years now. The plaintiff has applied for registration of the trademarks. 1987 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hitachi Ltd, Japan v Ajay Kumar Agarwal - HITACHI and HITAISHI were phonetically similar and there was a real danger of confusion. The respondent's plea of concurrent user was of no avail as the appellant was not aware of the use. Injunction restraining the respondent from the use of the mark HITAISHI in Hindi/Devnagri script granted. 1995 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Hoechst AG, Germany v Unisule Pvt Ltd, Delhi - Suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trade mark BARALGAN with offending mark BARAGAN. Decree passed ex parte favouring plaintiffs. Infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright by the deceptively similar strips of the defendants' product found. 1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Ever Green Service Station - Application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Sec. 151 of the CPC, for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from misappropriating the publicity rights. Defendants' application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Sec. 151, CPC for vacation of ad-interim injunction order. 2003 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
ICPA Health Products Pvt. Ltd. v. P. Banerjee Mihijam - Trademark Case petition for the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to be set aside and/or quashed and, in the alternative, the matter be remanded to be heard afresh after directing the petitioners to file their evidence under Rule 54 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1959.1994 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Indian Dental Works v. K. Dhanakoti Nadiu - First plaintiff in this suit is the widow of one Duraiswami Mudaliar and the second plaintiff is her son. Duraiswami Mudaliar started a business about the year 1934 of manufacturing tooth powder under the name Pyorrhea Tooth Powder. The principal features of trademark were the picture of a human face.1962 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Indian Herbs Research & Supply Co. Ltd. v. Laljimal - Suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing their registered trade mark 'HIMALAYAN BATISA' and from using the artistic work/label registered under the Copyright Act, 1957 and from passing off their goods under the offending trademark 'HIMALAYA BATISA'. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Indian Shaving Products Ltd. & Anr v Gift Pack - The plaintiffs had established prior user in the mark ULTRA which in combination with the trademark DURACELL had acquired transborder reputation. The plaintiffs had established a prima facie case in their favour. 1998 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Induss Food Products & Equipments Ltd. v Rani Sati Ice-cream Pvt. Ltd. - Granting injunction to the plaintiff the court held that ROLLICK and FROLLIK were deceptively similar and the defendant's use of the mark FROLLIK mark was deliberate. 1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
J & P. Coats Ltd. v. M/s. Chadha & Co. (India) New Delhi - Appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Delhi dismissing the plaintiff-appellant’s suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts and other consequential relief against the two defendants (respondents in this Court). Plaintiff manufacturers and deals in sewing and embroidery threads of all kinds.
J & W Hardie Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seargram & Sons Inc. - Appeal is from the order of the Registrar of Trade Mark, whereby the Registrar allowed the application of the respondent M/s. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc. for registration of trade mark under its application.1989 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
J. K. Ansell Pvt. Ltd. v Pasupati Seohung Ltd. - Plaintiff JK Ansell Pvt. Ltd., sought injunctive relief against defendant Pasupati Seohung Ltd.'s unauthorised use in Poland of the mark "Kama Sutra" for contraceptives. Defendant alleged that there was no passing off in India. Injunctive relief granted to the plaintiff. 1999 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
J. L. Mehta v. Registrar of Trade Marks - Whether the word 'Sulekha' which was registered as a trade mark by the Registrar of Trade Marks as far back as on 4th May 1953, in connection with fountain pens, nibs, etc., means 'good writing', so that it amounts to a description of the fountain-pens.1962 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
J. N. Nichols (Vimto) Ltd. v Rose & Thistle - Opposition to respondents attempt to register word VIMTO by the petitioner, proprietor of trade mark VIMTO and VINTO. VIMTO ordered to be expunged from Register for want of bona fide intention to use. Respondents' rectification application to expunge VINTO allowed on non-use. 1993 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Jabbar Ahmed vs. Prince Industries - Appeal against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, by which an application for rectification moved on behalf of respondent herein has been allowed and the trade mark in Class 8 registered for the product of the appellant has been ordered to be rectified and expunged from the Register Trade Marks.
Jacques Juanet S.A. v. M/s. Newman - 1999 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jagan Nath Prem Nath v. Bhartiya Dhoop Kayalaya, Khari, Baoli - Deals with provisions of Section 28(1) and Section 56 of the Act. The plaintiff has brought suit for permanent injunction against defendant in respect of his trademark containing universals 555 in respect of agarbatis. 1975 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. Mastermind Publishing House - Plaintiff has filed the present suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from threatening the plaintiff of groundless and illegal threats of civil and criminal proceedings including search and seizure etc. by the police and to serve upon them notices, circulars etc.
Jagson Pal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagson Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff is doing business under the trading style 'JAGSON' and 'JAGSON PAL'. Plaintiff was allotted the goodwill, trademark and trade name of the firm. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jagson Pal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. M/s. Senor Laboratories - Suit for injunction against the defendant on the ground of passing off the trade mark SEFLOX used by the plaintiff for manufacturing its pharmaceuticals preparations, now used by the defendant and selling products in the same name SEFLOX. Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jai Auto Industries v. Jay Industries - For registration of a label mark consisting of word 'JAI' for the specification of goods reading as 'CYLINDER LINER FOR AUTOMOBILES' in class 12. The mark was claimed to be used since 14 August, 1980. The application was duly advertised before acceptance under Section 20(1) proviso. Ahmedabad High Court, IPR, India.
Jai Prakash Gupta v. Vishal Aluminium Manufacturing Co. - Plaintiff sought an order of injunction restraining the defendants and all other persons on their behalf from selling the pressure cookers (non-electric) under the trade mark VISHAL king and/or other trade mark containing the word 'VISHAL' till final disposal of the suit.1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jain Chemical and Allied Industries v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. - Application in Class 12 in respect of tubes for cycle and cycle rikshaw tyres for trade mark 'ROAD CHAMPION'. Objections were raised by the Registry and after compliance thereof the mark was advertised before acceptance in pursuance of proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act. 1992 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jawahar Lal & Another v. Bharat Tobacco Mfg. Co. - The Suit in question, a passing-off action based on the alleged infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark by the defendants. The Trademark Case appeals was admitted by us on 21st September, 1983, and stay of the injunctions question was also granted. 1984 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jay Bharat Industries v. M/s. R. T. Engineering & Electonic Co., - Whether the allegedly offending mark is such as would cause confusion or deception or not and the court has to call its legal and general acumen to bear to the question after circumspecting all the relevant facts of the case. 1978 Gujarat High Court, IPR, India.
Jay Engg. Works Ltd v. Jay Industries - M/s. The Jay Engineering Works Ltd., filed an application being application under the trade mark consisting of word per se 'JAY' in respect of 'fuel injection equipment pumps for use in land vehicles' included in class 12. Certain objections were raised by the Trade Marks Registry.1993 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jay Industries v. Nakson Industries - Whether a single suit can be filed when it is alleged that there has been an infringement of the Plaintiff's trademark and copyright. In other words can one suit be filed in relation to two distinct statutory causes of action. 1992 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jaya Soap Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Meenakshi Soap Works - Plaintiff Jaya Soap Works Limited is the assignee of the trade marks 'SUPER PONVANDU' and 'PONVANDU DETERGENT CAKE' of the proposed second plaintiff, which is a partnership concern. That the respondent had infringed the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiff.1999 Madras High Court
Jindal (India) Ltd. v. Jindal Pipe House - Suit praying for issuance of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from carrying on their business of galvanised iron tubes, pipes and fittings thereof under the trade name and/or style as Jindal Pipe House. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jindal Industries Ltd v. Samana Steels Ltd - Order to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151. CPC, praying that the defendants be restrained from manufacturering or vending in black and galvanized steel pipes and tubes under the trade mark 'Bindal' with the device of map of India.1993 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jindal Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Nirmal Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. - Defendants state that they are also the registered owner of the trademark and that their trademark comprises of the word 'Nirmal' enclosed in an oval shape with the map of India. Defendants contend that the map of India has been disclaimed. 1994 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Johan A. Wulfing v. Chemical Industries - Whether the word CIPLAMINA is deceptively similar to COMPLAMINA'. The appellants trade mark COMPLAMINA was registered on 5th May 1960.1984 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
John Oakey & Mohan Ltd. v. M/s. Million Abrasives Pvt. Ltd. - Both products abrasives. The products of the petitioner are sold under the trademark OAKEY with devise of globe in the centre of which is OAKEY'S. The respondent has the word MILLION superimposed on oval. The trademarks taken as a whole were distinct. 1994 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Johnson & Johnson and another v. Christine Moden (India) Pvt. Ltd. - The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark STAYFREE and the legend 'NO BELTS: NO PINS: No STRINGS' on any packing for sale of sanitary napkins so as to pass off the goods. 1987 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Jugmug Electric & Radio Co. v. M/s. Telerad Pvt. Ltd - Appeal under Section 109 (6) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 43, of 1958 has been filed by the appellants against the order of the Assistant Registrar, removing the trade mark of the appellants.1977 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
K. B. Hirlala & Sons v. Kumar Industries - Plaintiff firm has filed this suit for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling geometrical boxes under the trade mark 'JULIE' or such other similar mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade mark 'JULIE' amounting to passing off. 1985 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
K. E. Burgmann A/S. v. H. N. Shah - Application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC for injuncting. The Logo KE was registered by the plaintiff at Denmark. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
K. R. Beri & Co. v. The Metal Goods Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd - Appeal against the order of Prakash Narain, J., by which he dismissed the petition filed by the appellant, under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. 1980 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
K. R. Chinnikrishna Chetty v. K. Venkatesh Mudaliar - Appeal arising out of application made by the appellant for registration of 'Radha's Sri Andal' snuff manufactured by them. The said trade mark was advertised in Trade Marks Journal and the first respondent, who is trading under the name 'Sri Ambal snuff' opposed the registration. 1974 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
K.T. Pavunny v. K.T. Mathew - Suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from carrying on business in the name of 'victory Press Offset Printers' or any other name likely to mislead or deceive the public into the belief that the press run by defendants is the same as the plaintiff's business known as 'Victory Offset Printers'.1983 Kerala High Court.
Kaira District Co-op. Milk Products v. Bharat Confectionery Works - Suit for perpetual injunction, for restraining the defendants from using and passing off goods as that of the plaintiff under plaintiff's trade mark 'AMUL'. Application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed for interim injunction in the same terms. 1993 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kalinga Gudakhu Udyog v. Konark Gudakhu Factory - Three partners were the registered owners of the Trade Mark 'STAR' in class 3, in respect of GUDAKHU, being tooth powder made from tobacco for sale in the states of Bihar & Orissa.1989 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kalyani Breweries Ltd. v. Khoday Brewing & Distilling Industries Ltd. - The case of the petitioner is that the 'Mark' and the 'Label' were well known and were distinctive and for this product the petitioner got its mark registered in Class 32 in respect of beer under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 1991 Calcutta High Court, IPR, India.
Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deoomal - Appeal involves a question of rectification of the Trade Mark Register by deleting mark 'Amar' registered in the name of the Appellants in Part 'B' of the Register in class 24 of the rules made under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 1982 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Kedar Nath v. Monga Perfumery & Flour Mills - Plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller of Dhoop and agrabhi, under registered trademark 'SUDERSHAN', which is in regular and continuous use since 1952. The plaintiff also holds copyright registration relating to artistic representation pertaining to SUDERSHAN DHOOPBATHI'. 1974 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kellogg Company v Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai - Trade dress of defendant was entirely different and there was no scope of confusion. Appeal against order of Single Judge upheld. Plaintiff's pleas of confusing similarity in get-up and imperfect customer memory rejected. 1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kerala Jewellers, Madras v. Kerala Jewellers, Trichy - Plaintiff filed three Trademark Case petitions under order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to pass an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from using the offending trade mark 'Kerala Jewellers'.1999 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Kewal Krishan Kumar v. Akash Spices and Food Industry - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants. Regarding the trade mark 'Shakti Bhog'. 1993 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kewal Krishan Kumar v. Master Hawa Singh - Suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or otherwise dealing in Atta under the trade mark SHIV SHAKTI BHOG of any other trade mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark SHAKTI BHOG of the plaintiff and from passing off. 2000 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kewal Krishan Kumar v. Purity Foods - Suit for perpetual injunction in an action for infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts and delivering of the offending material. The plaintiff is the Sole Proprietary firm 'Kumar Dal Mills' and has been carrying on business since 1975 using the trademark 'Shakti Bhog'. 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kirit Kumar Girdharlal Doshi v. Wimco Limited - Application under Section 18(1) of the Act for registration of a trade mark consisting of a device of boat and word 'Boat' in Class 34 for a specification of goods which read as 'safety matches'. The said application was advertised in the trademarks journal.1998 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. - It was held by the court that common field of activity was no longer valid basis in passing off actions and personal name was not protectable use, particularly when extended to artificial persons like incorporated companies. 1995 Mumbai High Court, IPR, India.
Kisan Industries v. M/s. Punjab Food Corporation & another - Appeal from judgment of the Addl. District Judge restraining the appellant-defendant No. 2 from selling the products under the trade mark 'KISHAN and SUHNA' or from using the design/art work of the plaintiff existing under the title 'SOHAN' and from infringing the copyright in the 'KISAN'.1983 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kishore Zarda Factory (P) Ltd. v. J. P. Tobacco House - Suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, in respect of the trade mark 'SHIVDATA' in relation to chewing tobacco, restraining the defendants from passing off, by manufacturing or selling under the trade name 'SHOVA' with identical colour scheme.1998 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kopran Ltd. v. Sigma Laboratories - Label mark consisting of the word BETEN was sought for registration in class 5 for the goods 'Medicinal and Pharmaceutical preparations' by the applicants. Eventually the application was accepted and duly advertised.1999 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Kuldip Singh v. S. K. Auto Industries - Suit challenging the infringement by the defendants, of the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'SAINI' in relation to the manufacturing and marketing of hydraulic Brake Parts and the artistic carton/label with the said trade mark.1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kumar Electric Works and another v. Olympia Home Appliances (P) Ltd. - Dispute regarding Olympus and Olympia.1992 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kumar Electric Works v. Anuj Electronics - Application under Order 39 Rulers 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in Black & White T.V. sets under the trade mark 'OLYMPUS' and passing off its said product under the said trade mark.1989 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kundan Soap Company v. Ajanta Soap Co. & Another - Plaintiff applied for registration of the trade mark ASHIRVAD with the Registrar of Trade Marks. The advertisement in this regard was issued in Trade Marks Journal and no objection was filed by any party. The plaintiff markets the washing soap using the trade mark ASHIRVAD.1986 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Kusum Products v. Ramesh Chemical Industries - For declaration and injunction for passing off goods within the meaning of section 27(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 55 of the Copyright Act.1986 Madhya Pradesh High Court, IPR, India.
L. Ganeshi Lal and others v. Arawar Khan Mahboob & Co. - Suit for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to use 'Chand Tara' mark on biris (cigarettes) manufactured by them and the defendant was not entitled to restrain them from using this trade mark. They also claimed to recover Rs. 200 as damages. 1933 Allahabad High Court, IPR, India.
Lachhmandas Biharilal v. Bhagwan Dass - First appeal has been filed under S. 109 (6) of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act. 43 of 1958, against the order of the Assistant Registrar, by which he has refused the application of the appellants to remove the mark of the contesting respondents 1 to 3 from the register of trade marks.1977 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Lakbir Singh v. Bakhat Singh & others - Bakhat Singh and others, trading as Sardar Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi for the registration of a trade mark consisting essentially of the device of a tiger and the word 'TIGER' in English in class 25 in respect of shoulder pads. 1973 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Lakha Ram Sharma v. Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. - Question relating to territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been posed in this case. The petitioner has filed the application under Sections 46 and 56 of the Act for rectification in Class 9 of the IV Schedule of the Act. The trademark KUNDAN/KUNDAN CAB is the subject matter. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Lakhpat Rai Sampat Rai Sadh v. Dhanpat Rai Goel - whether the Respondents were entitled to use their trademark composed of a bamboo grove, even though the same was registered in the name of the Appellants, simply because bamboo is a generic term, and the registration was subject to the condition that it was not exclusive as to bamboo. 1974 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Lakme Limited v. M/s. Subhash Trading - Application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'LIKE ME' the device and the word 'Designer'.1996 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Lakshmi Narayan Karva & others v. Satyaranayanan Khubchand Karva - Appellants opposed the application before the Assistant Registrar contending that the respondent had not been using their trade mark from 1961, whereas they were exclusively, extensively and continuously using their trade mark from 1956 without any interference. 1975 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Lakshmi PVC Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Lakshmi Polymers - Plaintiff praying for an interim injunction restraining the respondent from issuing circulars and advertisements threatening action for passing off of goods or any threats affecting the business or reputation pending disposal of the suit under section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.1990 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Lal Sons Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Sachar Electric Machines Stores - For perpetual injunction restraining the infringement of registered trade mark MASTER in respect of air compressors and other reliefs. Plaintiff claims to be a reputed manufacturer of air compressors marketing with the trademark MASTER since the year 1963. 1986 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Lalli Enterprises v. Dharam Chand and Sons - Plaintiff has filed this suit for infringement of trademark 'A.B.C. (label)' and passing off action in respect of copyright in the label of the trademark besides rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant. Defendant is doing business at Rewari (Haryana). 2000 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah - Plaintiff has filed these special leave Trademark Case petitions. Leave granted. According to the plaintiff, he started the business of colour lab and studio in the year 1982 in Ahmedabad, in the name and style of Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio and is using the name since 1982 openly, extensively and to the knowledge of everyone concerned. 2002 SC
Lipin Laboratories v. Jain Products - Trademark infringement action alleging that the Defendants had infringed the Plaintiff's trademark in 'PYKALFIN' through their product, 'PYRALFIN'. The Plaintiff prayed for an injunction. 1998 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
Living Media v.Jitender V Jain - Whether the name and style of 'AAJ TAK' and its logo having distinctive features in relation to the News Channel is a generic term and as such is not the monopoly of any particular person either in relation to the news programme or otherwise. 2002 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
London Rubber Co. Ltd. vs. Durex Products - The question which arises for consideration is whether the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Calcutta, was right in admitting to registration the trade mark “Durex” which respondent No. 1 claims to own and is using on the packing of the contraceptives manufactured and marketed by it.
M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Charak Pharmaceuticals - Appeal filed against the Order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to register Petitioners' mark 'MJTONE'. The 1st Respondent had on 18th October 1985, by their Application applied for registration of Trade Mark 'M2 TONE'. 1989 Bombay High Court, IPR, India.
M.R.F. Limited v. N.R. Faridabad Rubbers - Suit for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from passing off their goods and business as and for the goods and business of the plaintiff by using the offending trade mark 'NRF', and restraining the defendants from infringing plaintiff's registered trade mark 'MRF'.1998 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Madan Lal Arora v. Soni Udyog - In an action for passing off and damages, the plaintiff, sole proprietor of M/s. Calcutta Wire Netting Industries, has filed this application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants.1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Madan Lal Jain v. Babu Di Fancy Hatti and Another. - Appeal from the order passed by the ADJ, Delhi in Civil Suit under order 39 R1 and 2 CPC restraining the appellant/plaintiff.1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Madura Coats Ltd. & Others v. Chetan Dev - For a declaration to the effect that the alleged infringement to which the threats of the defendants towards the plaintiff relate, was, in fact, not the infringement of any legal rights of the defendants.1985 Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Maekawa Bearing Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Onkar Bearing Industries. - Appeal under Section 109 (2) of the Trade and Merchandise Act is directed against the order under Section 21 of the Act, rejecting the opposition to the registration of the trade mark 'MBS'. No evidence to suggest that Onkar was not an honest concurrent user 1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Mahender Shah v Hindustan Lever Ltd. - Civil Court held in favour of Mahender Shah. Trademark Case appeals from both parties to High Court. Court allowed HLL's application and restrained Mahender Shah from the use of the ANNAPURNA mark. HLL had prior use of the mark and a strong prima facie case. 1997 Andhra Pradesh High Court, IPR, India.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. - Plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar tradename to pass off its business as associated with the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff had a prima facie case for the grant of injunction. 1998 Mumbai High Court, IPR, India.
Mahendra Traders v. Dinesh & Jiten Creations - Plaintiff claims perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing selling or otherwise dealing in hosiery goods or readymade garments under the trade mark 'My Child', and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's copyright.1988 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Malhotra Rubber (P) Ltd v. Malhotra Auto Products - Suit for grant of decree for perpetual injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, trading style, passing off and for rendition of accounts etc. filed by the plaintiff against defendant. Offending trade mark MALHOTRA.1997 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Malhotra Tyre Services Co. v. M/s. Malthotra Tyre Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff firm has been registered since 1956 as a partnership firm. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application for converting itself into a company but the same was rejected as it was found that the defendant M/s Malhotra Tyres Pvt. Ltd. had already stood incorporated. 1991 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Manoj Plastic India v. M/s. Bhola Plastic Industries - Plaintiff firm has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing mirrors under the trademark TONY since 1981.Due to the quality and design, the mirrors have acquired a wide reputation and goodwill. 1984 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Mars Inc. v. Chanda Softy Ice Cream - Plaintiffs' two trademarks 'MILKY WAY' and 'GALAXY' registered and used in many countries. Defendants selling ice cream under name MILKY WAY GALAXY OF ICE CREAMS. Tansborder reputation of plaintiff. Defendants action amounted to passing-off. 2001 Madras High Court
Mars Incorporated v. Chanda Softy Ice Creams (Contempt Jurisdiction) - Applications have been filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. These two applications have been filed by the plaintiffs drawing the attention of' the court about the wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of the court by the defendants in the suit. 2001 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Medivision Scan and Diagnostic Research Centre Private Limited v. Medivision-Ind Diagnostic Centre - The appellant filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendant from passing off services in the name deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs name. The appellant also filed an application for interim injunction which was dismissed by the Trial Court.
Messrs Ganga Engineering Works v. Messrs Ganga Foundry - Trademark Case petitioner is not in a position to give the exact date on which the issues are framed in the Suit. However, the Order of the Lower Court shows that the Suit was included in the list from trial on June 10,1993 initially. That means the issues were framed long before the Suit was ready for trial. 1995 Madras High Court, IPR, India.
Metro Playing Card Co. v. Wazir Chan Kapoor - Respondent/plaintiff was manufacturing and selling playing under registered trademark 'tractor' with the device of 'tractor'. The plaintiff as early as 1971 came to know that defendant has adopted trademark 'Ferguson' with device of tractor. 1973 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Micronix India v. J.R. Kapoor - Application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Regarding trade name MICRO TELEMATIX.1993 Delhi High Court, IPR, India.
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Sudhir Bhatia - Appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The Appellants filed a suit for passing off and for infringement of Copyright. In the suit an application for interim injunction under the provision of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed.
Mitaso Appliances Ltd. v. Mehta Zinabhai Bhimji Bhai - Plaintiff claims to be the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'MITASO' and has filed this suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or otherw