Search Results for "Section 124 Trade Marks Act"

129 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 129 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers Interim Application in Trademark Infringement Suit Concerning M-SEAL and R-SEAL Marks. Plaintiff Alleges Deceptive Similarity and Passing Off, Citing Prior Registrations and Well-Known Status.

The plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, a world-renowned company dealing in sealants and adhesives, filed an interim application in a commercial i...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers Infringement of Well-Known Mark 'Raymond' in Domain Name for Dissimilar Goods; Discusses Scope of Section 29(4) of Trade Marks Act, 1999. Domain Name 'raymondpharma.com' Not Found to Infringe 'Raymond' Mark Under Section 29(4) Due to Dissimilar Goods and Prior Litigation Bar.

The dispute arose from the Plaintiff Raymond Limited's claim that the Defendant Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. infringed its well-known registered t...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Reviewed Writ Petition Against IPAB Order Cancelling Pharmaceutical Trademark Registration. The Court Examined Whether Rectification Application Was Maintainable Under Section 124 Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Whether IPAB Correctly Applied Deceptive Similarity Test to Cancel OFLOMAC Mark.

The dispute concerned pharmaceutical trademarks OFLOMAC and OFRAMAX. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, the petitioner, challenged an order of the Inte...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Restrains Defendant from Using Similar Trademark in Instant Adhesive Case. Affirms Likelihood of Confusion Between 'FEVIKWIK' and 'KWIKHEAL' Based on Overall Similarity of Marks and Trade Dress.

The plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, a leading manufacturer of adhesives and sealants, filed a suit against Poma-Ex Products and others for tra...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case: 'ROFOL' vs 'PROFOL'. Prior Registration of 'ROFOL' by Plaintiff in 1992 Entitles Injunction Against Defendant's Deceptively Similar Mark 'PROFOL' Under Section 29 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

The plaintiff, M/s. Neon Laboratories Limited, filed a suit for infringement and passing off against the defendants, M/s. Medical Technologies Ltd. an...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers Transfer Application Under CPC Section 24 in Trademark Infringement Suit — Maintainability of Interim Application Questioned. Registrar of Trade Marks' Status as Subordinate Court Under CPC and Proper Forum for Transfer Application Examined.

The matter concerns an application for transfer of trademark rectification proceedings from the Registrar of Trade Marks to the Bombay High Court, to ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction Against Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off in Pharmaceutical Product 'ONCO BCG' - Defendant's Mark 'BCG ONCO' Held Deceptively Similar Despite Common Descriptive Element 'BCG'.

The plaintiff, Serum Institute of India Limited, a pharmaceutical company, filed a suit for trade mark infringement and passing off against Green Sign...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Suit Despite Defendant's Preliminary Objections. Plaintiff's Mark 'ESSEL' Found to Have Acquired Distinctiveness and Defendant's Use Likely to Cause Confusion.

The plaintiff, Essel Propack Ltd., filed a suit in 2010 against Essel Kitchenware Ltd. and another defendant for trademark infringement and passing of...