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

Carreefour v. Suburaman 2007 (35) PTC 225(Mad.)

By

Carrefour v. Suburaman 2007 (35) PTC 225(Mad.)|| Case Summary 


Facts

  1. The plaintiff was associated with the retail business in France and several other countries. 
  2. They were the proprietor of trade mark "Carrefour" in several countries for various goods including furniture. Also, they had registered the trademark "Carrefour" in India but not for furniture.
  3. The defendants in the business of furniture applied for registration of the mark "Carrefour".
  4. A civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff (Carrefour) in February 2007 for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark "Carrefour" and "C" logos. 
  5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff made an application for an interlocutory order regarding the same issue which had been granted by this Court. 
  6. Although the respondents stated that they had already discontinued the use of the"C" logo immediately after the receipt of the cease and desist notice, they made 7 contentions regarding the use of the trademark "Carrefour" in their application to vacate the injunction order. 

Contentions of the Defendants

  1. The plaintiff has suppressed a communication dated 9-9-2003
  2. No question of international reputation arises in the retail business of running stores, supermarkets, etc.
  3. Trade mark "Carrefour" had not acquired the status of a "well-known trademark" to get protection under S.11 of the Trade Marks Act,1999.
  4. The plaintiff's business was not concerned with the manufacturing or marketing of furniture in India.
  5. The plaintiff was silent on the use of the mark by the plaintiff for more than 3 years after the notice of 9-9-2003 was issued.
  6. No opposition was raised by any including the plaintiff on the advertisement for registration of the said mark/name "Carrefour" made in Trade Journal.
  7. They are using the said mark "Carrefour" as a result of honest adoption.

Observations

  1. The 1st contention was countered by the plaintiff through an affidavit which states that it was the omission of earlier counsel for the plaintiff and also that the said notice was the same as the earlier notice. 
  2. As the respondents agreed to the same claim of international reputation regarding the "C" logo, there is no point in resistance to the mark "Carrefour". Also, the plaintiff had already made almost 2500 registrations for this mark worldwide.
  3. Since the plaintiff had not applied for registration, S.11 doesn't apply in the present case as it provides for the registrar certain grounds for refusal to register a mark. 
  4. The concept of a "well-known trademark" was introduced in the new Act of 1999 to protect a trade mark which came to be identified for particular goods or services from being used in relation to other goods and services also, if a substantial segment of the public which uses the first mentioned goods or services is likely to be misled.
  5. The 4th contention had also been countered by the fact that the plaintiff had already set up a Liaison Office in Gurgaon, Haryana, and also entered into agreements with various manufacturers in India. 
  6. S.33(1) clearly mentions that acquiescence by the proprietor of an earlier trademark must be in relation to a registered trademark. Since the respondents had not yet registered the mark, the application of S.33(1) would not have effect here.
  7. S.21(1) clearly states that the period of limitation for filing a Notice of Opposition would commence from the date of the advertisement or re-advertisement. In this case, the date of re-advertisement was 1-11-2006, hence the period of limitation would commence from here.
  8. The respondents failed to pass the test of honesty in adoption.

Decision

  1. The application made by the respondents for vacating the injunction was dismissed.
  2. The plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is refused.

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