Singh & Associates
International Arbitration Comparative Guide for the jurisdiction of India, check out our comparative guides section to compare across multiple countries
Nishith Desai Associates
Indian Stamp Act is proposed to be amended to replace broker turnover stamp duty with stamp duty on the clearance list used for transactions through stock exchange.
Khurana and Khurana
Allergan's "Restasis®" is a branded ophthalmic cyclosporine emulsion, for the treatment of chronic dry eye, with annual sales of nearly $1.5 billion.
The Plaintiff, Monsanto Technology LLC had filed a Commercial Suit Number CS Comm No. (132 of 2016) before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court alleging that Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd and others were...
Singhania & Partners LLP, Solicitors and Advocates
The government is taking various routes to facilitate and broaden Foreign Direct Investment inflows into India.
On January 10, 2008, the Supreme Court of India issued an important decision in the case Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services, Ltd. regarding the enforcement in India of foreign arbitration awards.
Sometime it happens in trademark disputes that the impugned mark is an indicator of a trade source which is entirely different from the first i.e. the businesses and the goods are completely different bearing the same trade name/mark.
A word trademark is inherently distinctive when it is an invented or coined word and the uniqueness of its distinctiveness can be diluted if used by others in an unauthorized manner. But the pertinent question here is that what is the time limitation to bring a passing off action against the unauthorized use of the trademark.
One of the important criteria for obtaining registration under the Copyright Act, 1957 is that, the application must include a statement accompanied by a certificate from the registrar to the effect that no trademark identical or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been registered under the Trademark Act.
Sec. 57 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 gives power to registrar to rectify the register. However, the plain reading of this section gives rise to a conflicting situation in light of section 107 of the Act, which puts a bar on power of registrar in this regard.
The Trademark battle often runs into taking the shape of a suit for infringement, deception, claim of being a prior user, so on and so forth.
Asia Pacific Breweries Ltd, an incorporation in Singapore manufactures beer under the trademark ‘TIGER Beer’. Asia Pacific Breweries claims to be the owner and user of the mark since 1932. The company owns 14 Breweries in eight countries round the world.
It is a trite law that a judgement and order passed by the court having no territorial jurisdiction would be a nullity. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, govern determination of territorial jurisdiction of a Civil Court. Section 20 of the Code provides that the suits which do not come within the purview of Section 16 to 19 of the Code are to be instituted where the defendants reside or cause of action arises.
The acquiescence in relation to the use of a mark disentitles the proprietor of the mark to oppose it from being used. The case Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd versus Tidal Laboratories P Ltd 2006 (32) PTC 221(Bom) amply lays down the law in this matter. Also that registration of a trademark is not a crucial factor in denying relief in a passing off action.
Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd is a reputed manufacturer of tractors and farm equipments. They started a division to manufacture and market tubular and flat batteries to be used in UPS, Inverters etc. Amco Batteries limited is an associate company. Amco Batteries Limited granted a licence in favour of the Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd to use the trademark AMCO.
Sandyz Confezioni S.P.A, an Italy based company, filed for the registration of the trademark letters ‘ST’, which appears to be a geometrical device in respect of articles of ‘sport clothing’.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., moved an ad-interim application for the action of passing off under the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1999, where in the Macleods Pharmaceuticalss sought an injunction from the court, to restrain the Tidal Laboratories from using the impugned trade mark "Rabemax" or any other mark bearing similarity to the Macleods Pharmaceuticals’s mark "Rabemac".