Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

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

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)

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

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