Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. Darzi on Call

Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. Darzi on Call CS(Comm) No. 1381/2016 19th April, 2017 In October, 2016, Plaintiff, Mr Sunil Mittal and Darzi (India) LLP, registered proprietor of the trademark “THE DARZI, THE SUIT PEOPLE 1981” (Label Mark), instituted a suit against the Defendant, M/s Darzi on Call, for injunction restraining the Defendant from using

aaLAWchak: The Founder

Movie: The Founder Starring: Michael Keaton, Nick Offerman, John Carroll Lynch, Linda Cardellini, Patrick Wilson, B. J. Novak and Laura Dern  Directed by: John Lee Hancock   Year of Release: 2016  “In the world of business intellectual capital has to be accompanied with passion and persistence” John Lee Hancock’s ‘The Founder’, is one of those rare

Pandit Kulfi and Cafe v. Pandit Kulfi

Pandit Kulfi and Cafe v. Pandit Kulfi 2016 (65) PTC 414 (Rajasthan) Brief Facts: Appellant was proprietor of the mark ‘PANDIT’ for Kulfi, Ice Creams and other milk products. Appellant came to know that the Respondent is also using the mark ‘PANDIT’ for Kulfi. Appellant filed a suit for Permanent injunction against the Respondent along

Capital Plastic Industries v. Happy Plastic Industries

Capital Plastic Industries v. Happy Plastic Industries 1988 PTC 182 Brief Facts: As per the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff started using the trademark RABBER from 1983 in respect of thermos jug. Plaintiff also obtained Copyright registration in the artistic label bearing the mark RABBER in 1984. After September, 1985, Plaintiff dropped the usage of the mark

Delhi Public School Society v. DPS World Foundation and Anr.

Delhi Public School Society v. DPS World Foundation and Anr.  Delhi High Court 18.04.2016 Brief Facts: Plaintiff society was registered in the year 1948-49 as Delhi Public School. In 1948, Plaintiff first adopted the distinctive crest which is reproduced herein below: The said crest was registered under different classes under the Trade Marks Rules, 2002

Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors.

Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors.  2015 (64) PTC 225 (SC) Brief Facts: Respondents through their predecessors in interest were using the mark ‘Profol’ in India since 1998 for pharmaceutical product. In 2005, Respondents came to know that the Defendant have launched a drug called ‘ROFOL’ for identical product. Respondents filed a suit for

Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.

Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr. AIR 1968 Calcutta 582 Brief facts: The Appellant applied for Registration of the mark “Simla” under Part A of the Register. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant stating that the word “Simla” is a geographical name and registrable only

Express Bottlers Services Private Ltd. v. Pepsico Inc. and Ors.

Express Bottlers Services Private Ltd. v. Pepsico Inc. and Ors. 1989 (9) PTC 14 (Calcutta) Brief Facts: Respondent No. 1, Pepsico Inc., was a company incorporated under the appropriate laws of Delaware, in the United States of America and was the registered proprietor of the marks, “Pepsi Cola” “Pepsi” and “Pepsico”. Petitioner claimed to be

Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. v. Fedders Corporation

Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. v. Fedders Corporation 2005 (30) PTC 353 (Del-DB) Facts: Under an agreement entered into between ‘Fedders Quiogan Corporation’ (the Respondent) and the then partnership firm, ‘M/s Llyod Electric and Engineering Company’, on 21st May 1956, a license to deal in air conditioners was granted to the latter for 5 years under

Bikanervala v. New Bikanerwala

Bikanervala v. New Bikanerwala 2005 (30) PTC 113 (Del) Facts of the case: The Plaintiff is a partnership firm involved in manufacturing and marketing ethnic food including sweets and namkeens since 100 years. In 1981, they opened an outlet in Karol Bagh under the trade mark “Bikanervala”. In 1992, Plaintiff also adopted an artistic label

Geepee Ceval Proteins and Investment Private Limited v. Saroj Oil Industry

Geepee Ceval Proteins and Investment Private Limited v. Saroj Oil Industry 2003 (27) PTC 190 (Delhi) Brief Facts: Plaintiff was a company engaged in the manufacture of edible oil, since 1997, being sold under the trade mark ‘Chambal’. In 1997-1998, Plaintiff’s turn-over was about Rs. 113 crores and in 2003 at around Rs. 241 crores.

M/s. Hindustan Radiators Co. vs. Hindustan Radiators Limited

M/s. Hindustan Radiators Co. vs. Hindustan Radiators Limited 1987 PTC 73 Brief Facts: Plaintiff, M/s. Hindustan Radiators Co., Station Road, Jodhpur was a partnership concern which was carrying its business since 1959 and was engaged in manufacturing various types of radiators to be used in vehicles like buses, trucks, jeeps, cars, cranes, compressors, etc. under