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…
Titan Industries Limited vs Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr. 2007 (34) PTC 346 IPAB Appellant filed an appeal challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, allowing Form TM-16 filed by the Respondent No. 2 for amendment of the date of user Respondent No. 2 had filed an application on 1.9.1987 for…
Aktiebolaget Volvo and Ors. Vs. R. Venkatachalam and Anr. 160 (2009) DLT 100 Whether it is permissible in law to permit a party to a civil suit to file only photocopy of the document and exempt such party from placing the original document on the file of the court and merely to give inspection thereof…
Lakha Ram Sharma Vs. Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 175 (SC) Appellant filed a suit claiming that he is a proprietor of a trademark ‘KUNDAN’ and ‘KUNDAN CAB’ in respect of PVC Wires and Cables and that the Respondent was using the appellant’s trademark. Appellant applied for amendment of the Plaint. Application for…
The Registrar of Trade Marks Vs. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd. AIR 1955 SC 558 Full Bench In 1897, one Durga Charan Rakhit adopted as his trade mark (for selling Ghee), the following mark: The mark has ‘Shree’ written on the top in bold Bengali character, having below it a figure with the word “Shree”, the…
Milmet Oftho Industries and Ors. Vs. Allergan Inc. 2004 (28) PTC 585 (SC) Appellants were Pharmaceutical Companies. Respondent was also a Pharmaceutical company. Respondents filed a Suit for injunction seeking restraining of passing off in respect of mark “OCUFLOX” in respect of eye care product. Respondents claimed that they were the prior users of the…
Laxmikant V. Patel Vs. Chetanbhai Shah and Anr. 2002 (24) PTC 1 (SC) Appellant had a business of Colour lab and studio since 1982 in the name of ‘Muktajivan’ Colour Lab and Studio. In order to expand, Appellant promoted his wife and brother-in-law to open a new colour lab in the name and style of…
K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar Vs. Shri Ambal and Co., Madras and Anr. Full Bench Decision (1969) 2 SCC 131 The parties were manufacturers of snuff carrying on business at Madras. Both had their business in and outside of Madras. Respondents were the proprietors of the registered mark consisting of a label containing a device of…
Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan 1994 PTC 287 The Plaintiffs being a famous German car company and it’s subsidiary in India, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark against the Defendant towards use of it’s trade mark ‘Benz’ along with the device of a three pointed human being…
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. Vs. The Zamindara Engineering Co. (1969) 2 SCC 727 Appellant carried business of manufacturing and sale of diesel internal combustion engines. Ruston Hornsby (India) Ltd., was a subsidiary of the Appellant. The Respondent was a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of diesel internal combustion engines. The appellant…
Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors. 2004 (28) PTC 121 (SC) The Appellants had filed a suit for passing off and for infringement of Copyright against the Respondent before the High Court. Hon’ble High Court noted that the Respondent worked with the plaintiff prior to launching it’s own business and the…
Director of Income Tax vs. Infrasoft Ltd. Delhi High Court 22.11.2013 Key Words: taxability, use of software, royalty, double taxation, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, license, transfer of copyright, transfer of copyrighted article, copyright, computer programme Relevant Statutory Provisions: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss. 260A, 9(1)(vi), Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA): Article 7, 12(3) Facts: The Respondent/Assessee (A) in this case…