| | |

Case List: Procedural aspects of Trademark Law

ByAnkit Rastogi
Procedure prescribed in Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 67 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 is mandatory.
  • Union of India Vs. Malhotra Book Depot, 2013 (54) PTC 165 (Del) (DB) [Summary]
  • CIPLA Limited Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Boudhik Sampada Bhawan and Union of India through Ministry of Commerce Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, 2013 (56) PTC 217 Bom
Consent given to one party does not mean that the proprietor has given consent to all /even if consent has been given to one, the others can be restricted.
  • Castrol Ltd. Vs. A.K. Mehta, 1997 PTC (17)(DB) 408
The mere posting of the examination report on the website of Trade Mark office does not constitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing as required by rule 38(4) of Trade Marks Rules, 2002.

Similar Posts

| |

Bloomberg Finance LP v. Prafull Saklecha & Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

Bloomberg Finance LP v. Prafull Saklecha & Ors. CS(OS) No. 2963 of 2012 Before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Decided on: 11th October, 2013 Facts The Plaintiff a multinational financial news corporation was founded in 1982. Plaintiff operated in India through it’s subsidiary/associate Co. in New Delhi. Plaintiff’s ‘Bloomberg’ Trademark was…

|

Koninklijke Philips Electronics Ltd. v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd.

ByAnkit Rastogi

Koninklijke Philips Electronics Ltd. v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd. C-299/99 European Court of Justice Brief Facts: Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the following shape mark: In 1966, Philips developed a new type of three headed rotary electric shaver. The three headed shape was registered as a trade mark in the year 1985. In 1995,…

| | | |

BLUEBERRY BOOKS & ORS. v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

ByAnkit Rastogi

BLUEBERRY BOOKS & ORS. v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. 2014 (58) PTC 62 In 2003, the Plaintiffs published a series of books under the name ‘Moral Stories’ in 4 Parts. They claimed that the stories contained in the aforementioned books are original literary and artistic works of the Plaintiffs and are protected under…
| |

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part II

ByAnkit Rastogi

In our last post on the above subject captioned matter, we had covered the Brief Facts of the matter, the decision of the Learned Single Judge in the present matter and the key takeaways from the said decision. Pertinently, the Learned Single Judge had granted a temporary injunction towards the removal of said video. The…

|

Kaveri Hotels Private Limited Vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Anr.

ByAnkit Rastogi

Kaveri Hotels Private Limited Vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Anr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD Decided On: 06.01.2015 Facts: An application for registration of a trade mark was filed by one Mr. Gulraj Vaswani, as the proprietor of CHOKHI DHANI, to register the mark (logo) ‘Chokhi Dhani’ in respect of ‘food…

| |

H & M Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr. v. HM Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

2018 (74) PTC 229 (Del) Brief facts: Plaintiff, was a well-known designer, marketer, and seller of wide and varied fashionable clothing collection and ancillary product and services for women, men, teenagers, and children. To firmly and formally establish its presence in India, Plaintiff No. 1 claimed to have incorporated its subsidiary H & M Hennes…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *