CISCO Technologies v. Shrikanth 2005 (31) PTC 538 (Del) Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Trade Mark Act Facts In this case, plaintiff CISCO was selling its products used in computer hardware since the year 1984 under the trademark ‘CISCO’ and was using a ‘Bridge Device’. It was submitted that the product of the plaintiff is…
Hollister Inc. v. Medik Ostomy Supplies Ltd. [2013] F.S.R. 24 Full Text here Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion Principle, Trade Mark FACTS H owned trade marks for medical products. M had imported H’s products into the United Kingdom and repackaged them for sale. In doing so, it had breached the requirement[1] that the importer give notice to…
Oracle America Inc. (Formerly Sun Microsystems Inc.) vs. M-Tech Data Ltd. [2012] UKSC 27 Full Text here Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion Principle, Trade Mark RELEVANT PROVISION(S): EU Directive 89/104 (available here) Article 5: According to Article 5(1) of the Directive, the registered trade mark confers on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. In addition, Article 5(1)(a) provides that…
Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs. Satya Deo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449 FACTS The Respondent (Satyadeo Gupta) had applied for registration of the trade name of a medicinal preparation “Lakshmandhara” in relation to the medicinal preparation since 1923. It was admitted by the Respondent that the Respondent’s product was mainly sold in the State of Uttar Pradesh…
Samsung Electronics Company Limited and Another v. G. Choudhary and Another[1] FACTS: Samsung initially brought suit in the district court in Delhi seeking an injunction based upon a claim of trademark infringement against the unauthorized distributors from importing and distributing Samsung’s products. The district court denied the injunction. In appeal, the plaintiff prayed for an…
N.R. Dongre and Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corpn. and Anr. 1996 PTC (16) 583 (SC) FACTS The Whirlpool Corporation, i.e. the Plaintiff No. 1 is a multinational corporation incorporated in U.S.A. and had an established business in the manufacture, sale, distribution and servicing of washing machines of all kinds. Plaintiff No. 1 is the successor of…
Union of India v. Malhotra Book Depot 2013 (54) PTC 165 (Del) (DB) FACTS: The Respondent had a Trade Mark ‘MBD’. The said Trade Mark was to be renewed on 23rd November, 1984. When in April, 2010 the Respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of it’s Trade Mark ‘MBD’ it applied for…
Institute of Cost Accountants of India v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Anr. W.P. No. 2088 of 2012 (High Court of Bombay) FACTS: The Petitioner had filed a Trade Mark application, which was objected by the Registrar of Trade Marks vide letter dated 19th September, 2011. However, said letter was merely uploaded on…
Himalaya Drug Company v. S.B.L. Ltd. 2013 (53) PTC 1 (Del.) (DB) FACTS: The Appellant filed a suit against the Respondent for infringement of trade mark Liv.52 by use of the trade mark Liv-T. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the suit of the Appellants holding that the mark ‘LIV’ is publici juris and there is…
Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics 2013 (53) PTC 112 (Del.) (DB) ISSUE: Whether the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 embodies the International Exhaustion Principle or National Exhaustion principle when the Registered Proprietor of Trade Mark places the goods in the market under Registered Trade Mark. FACTS: Samsung (Korea) and it’s Indian subsidiary Samsung India filed…
Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board, The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and John Distilleries Limited AIR 2009 Mad 196, 2010(42)PTC57(Mad) LAW POINTS: Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 requires a party opposing registration of a trade mark to file a notice of opposition to the registration within…