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

1993 Supreme(Cal) 406

UMESH C.BANERJEE, KALYANMOY GANGULI
J. N. NICHOLS (VIMTO) LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ROSE AND THISTLE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.R.LODGE, BACHAVAT, Gautam Chakraborty, R.K. KHANNA, S.N.MUKHERJEE

UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the English Act of 1938 (Trade Marks Act, 1938) and the Indian Act of 1958 (The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958) are in pari materia with each other in regard to the availability of a defence of special circumstances in the matter of an application for removal of a registered mark from the register of marks. For convenience's sake Ss. 26 (1) and 26 (3) of the English Act and Ss. 46 (1) (b) and 46 (3) of the Indian Act are set out hereunder. "26. (1) Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Section, a registered trade mark may be taken off the register in respect of any of the goods in respect of which it is registered on application by any person aggrieved to the Court or, at the option of the applicant and subject to the provisions of Section fifty-four of this Act, to the Registrar, on the ground either- (a) that the trade mark was registered without any bona fide intention on the part of the applicant for registration that it should be used in relation to those goods by him, and that there has in fact been no bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being up to the date





























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