V. G. BISHT
Mysore Deep Perfumery Household – Appellant
Versus
Sunilkumar Amrutlal Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal against the order dtd. 18/06/2021 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Nagpur, in application below Exh.5 under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") in Trade Mark Civil Suit No.5/2019, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to reject the application.
Facts
2. The appellant - plaintiff is a registered Partnership Firm and is carrying out business of marking and exporting of all kinds of goods like Agarbati, Scent, Perfume, Camphor, Dhoop, etc. under the provisions of Trade Marks Act including trade mark "Zed Black". The appellant started using trade mark "Shriphal" for the products in respect of Agarbati, Scent, Perfume, Camphor, Dhoop, etc. falling in Class-3 since 1992. The Registered trade mark is renewed from time to time and the same has become conclusive. The appellant has also given status of all other trade marks in Para No.14 of the plaint.
3. According to the appellant - plaintiff, the defendant was purchasing the said goods
Adil Jamshed Frenchman (Dead) By Lrs. Vrs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust
Heinz Italia and Another Vrs. Dabur India Ltd
K. Narayanan and Another Vrs. S. Murali
Laxmi Snack Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Akshar Food Products, A. Vs. Papaya Sastry and Others Vrs. Govt. of A. P
Laxmikant Vs. Patel Vrs. Chetanbhai Shah
M/S. Hindustan Pencils Private Limited Vrs. M/S. India Stationery Products Co
Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. and Another Vrs. Sudhir Bhatia
Neon Laboratories Limited Vrs. Medical Technologies Limited
Orange City Mobile Collection, Nagpur Vrs. City Collection, Nagpur
Power Control Appliances and Others Vrs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd
Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vrs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel
The appellant's prior use of the trade mark 'Shriphal' and the effect of non-renewal of trade mark registration were central to the court's decision.
Registered trademark owners have exclusive rights, but concurrent users may claim based on prior use and non-acquiescence.
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
A trade mark recognized as well-known under the Trade Marks Act is protected against concurrent use by others regardless of the class of goods, particularly when evidence of rightful prior use and bo....
The court emphasized that misleading statements in seeking ex-parte injunctions undermine judicial integrity, warranting vacating such orders.
The court confirmed that a written agreement prevails over claims of oral licenses in matters of trademark use, reiterating that determinable contracts cannot be enforced for specific performance und....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.