Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks AIR 1972 Del. 179

By

Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks|| Geep Flashlight Industries case summary 



Introduction

This case was adjudged by the Court under the provisions of the Act of 1958 i.e. Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,1958. Section 9 of this Act places certain requirements to be fulfilled by the mark (words) to get it registered as a trademark. Fulfillment of all the conditions doesn't assure its registration because this Act also provided certain discretion to the Registrar under S.18(4) to accept the application or refuse to register. However, this discretion has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.

Facts

The business of the appellant company (Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd.) was to manufacture torches and their sale thereafter. The company was carrying on its sale of torches by the name of "Janta" torch. A few years later, the appellant company made an application to the Registrar to register the word "Janta" as a trademark for its torches in part B. Although evidence was placed before the Registrar regarding the attainment of distinctiveness by the word "Janta", the Registrar refused to register the said word. Grounds of non-registration as placed by the Registrar were -
  1. "Janta" was a word of common use therefore it could never be distinct or capable of distinguishing the goods.
  2. "Janta" had a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods because the goods bearing such a name indicate they are cheap in price and meant for common people.
After the refusal, the appellant company made an appeal to this Court.

Arguments of appellant

  1. The word "Janta" used here in Hindi means knowledge and not as public.
  2. S 9(5)(b) permits the registration of such trademark which because of its use adapted to distinguish or is capable of distinguishing the goods of the appellant.
  3. Referring to the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Sharma v. Navratna Pharma Lab. 1965, demanded its registration.

Issues

  1. Whether the word is entitled to registration in Part B of the register.
  2. Whether the word had acquired distinctiveness or was capable of distinguishing.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. The low price of a goods is not the only factor to ensure its sales. The fact of selling at a low price doesn't mean that it has a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods.
  2. In the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Sharma v. Navratna Pharma Lab. 1965, the trademark was registered only to give effect the proviso of S.6 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 which provides for registration of such marks which had already been in use before 25th day of 1937, irrespective of the conditions under S.6 of the Act of 1940 which is similar to S.9 of the1958 Act.
  3. "Janta" is a common use of word by the public, no monopoly can be created over it by making it a trademark.

Decisions

  1. Dismissed appeal
  2. The word "Janta" has a special significance due to its great public use to denote the common people, who have not acquired distinctiveness or are capable of being distinctive.
  3. Not entitled to registration.

Also read- The Imperial Tobacco Co. case

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more