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

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

By

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)

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