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

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Murugan Enterprises, 2012(50)PTC389(Del)

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Murugan Enterprises Case Summary|| Case study|| Exception to Infringement


Facts

  1. The appellant-plaintiff (Hawkins Cookers Ltd.) instituted a suit alleging that the use of the words "Suitable for Hawkins Cookers" on the packet of gaskets manufactured and traded by the defendant-respondent (Ms. Murugan Enterprises) was infringing their registered trademark "Hawkins".
  2. The defendant claimed protection under S.30(2)(d) which allows the use of a registered trademark in certain situations.
  3. The plaintiff contended that it is not reasonably necessary to indicate that the gasket is adaptable to the cookers manufactured by the appellant as the gasket can be used for every cooker of the same size manufactured by any manufacturer.
  4. The single-judge bench of this Court favoured the defendant by assuming that the respondent was manufacturing gaskets specifically for special sizes of pressure cookers manufactured by the appellant.

Issue

  1. Whether the registered trademark of the appellant was infringed or not.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. S.30 provides for certain situations where the use of a registered trademark by a person other than the owner shall not be considered as infringing the registered trademark. 
  2. The situation under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 30 is that the registered trademark is being used to indicate goods that form a part of or are an accessory to other goods for which the trademark is registered. Here the indication must be a reasonable necessity.
  3. "Reasonable necessary" means inherent in the situation it would be just. For the purpose of this section, it means that the goods claimed to be adaptable are specifically manufactured to be used as a part of the other goods for which the trademark is registered.
  4. In the present case, the respondent's goods (gasket) were not specifically manufactured as a part of the appellant's goods (pressure cooker). The gaskets manufactured by the respondent can be used as an accessory to any pressure cooker irrespective of the manufacturers. 

Decisions

  1. Appeal allowed.
  2. Set aside the earlier order.

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