| |

Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v. The Controller Genreral of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr.

Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v. The Controller Genreral of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr.  2019 (80) PTC 486 (Del) Delhi High Court Aggrieved by the practice of the Trade Marks Office of not giving speaking orders toward srefusal of trade mark registration and thereafter relying upon Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules,…

| |

CIPLA Limited  v. CIPLA Industries Private Limited and Ors.

CIPLA Limited  v. CIPLA Industries Private Limited and Ors. 2017 (69) PTC 425 (Bom) Full Bench A Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay vide order dated 26th April, 2016 expressed the view that decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Raymond Limited v. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt….

|

Alfred Dunhill Limited v. Kartar Singh Makkar and Ors.

Alfred Dunhill Limited v. Kartar Singh Makkar and Ors. 1999 (19) PTC 294 (Del) Brief Facts: Plaintiff was a company incorporated under the laws of England and engaged in manufacturing and marketing a wide range of products including textiles under the trademark ‘DUNHILL’. Defendants were also engaged in manufacturing and selling the textile articles under…

|

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. CIPLA LIMITED

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. 2009 (39) PTC 347 (DEL) Facts of the Case: The trade mark ‘THEOBID’ was registered in the name of one Natco Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited for medicines. The said trade mark was assigned to the Plaintiff along with its goodwill vide a deed of assignment in 1998. Plaintiff…

| |

M/s. Arjies Aluminim Udyog v. Sudhir Batra, New Delhi

M/s. Arjies Aluminim Udyog v. Sudhir Batra, New Delhi 1997 (17) PTC 187 (Del) Brief Facts: Appellant was using the mark ARJIES for aluminium door and window fittings. Respondent was using the mark ARCHIS for identical goods. Respondent might have addressed a legal notice to the Appellant asking it to restrain itself from using the…

| | |

Titan Industries Vs. Nitin P. Jain and Anr.

Titan Industries Vs. Nitin P. Jain and Anr. 2006 (32) PTC 95 (Del) The Plaintiff was incorporated in the year 1987 and its activities included manufacturing and marketing of watches, clocks and jewellery. The cause of filing the suit was the manufacturing and marketing of watches by the Defendants under the trade name/trade mark SONA…

|

Difference between Slump Sale and Asset Purchase

Definition of Slump Sale As per S. 2(42C), of Finance Act, 1999, ‘slump sale’ means the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale for a lump sum consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets and liabilities in such sales. As per Sect 180 of Companies Act, 2013- “180. (1) The Board…