SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Bom) 161

S.W.PURANIK
Ramanlal Vadilal Shah & others – Appellant
Versus
Lalitkumar Ranchhodlal & other – Respondent


JUDGMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J.:---This is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or in the alternative a revision petition against the order dated 8th April, 1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay raises an interesting question about interpretation of section 87 the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Trade Mark Act).

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be stated as follows :

The petitioners are partners of Eupharma Laboratories, which is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of manufacture of medicinal goods. Respondent No. 1 Lalitkumar is the Company Secretary of Pfizer Incorporated of U.S.A., a public limited Company incorporated under the India Companies Act, 1913.

The respondent on behalf of Pfizer incorporated filed a criminal complaint case before the trial Magistrate on 22nd March, 1982 alleging that the present petitioners have committed an offence punishable under sections 78 and 79 of the Act. It was the case of the complainant that pfizer incorporated is the owner of trade mark Vibramycin manufactured by the Pfizer Company in several countries around the world unde























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top