PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
QRG ENTERPRISES – Appellant
Versus
SURENDRA ELECTRICALS – Respondent
( 1 ) ALONG with the suit which inter alia seeks a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from using the word havell s as its mark or as part of its corporate name, plaintiffs sought interim injunction as per prayer made in IA No. 7880/2004. On 25. 11. 2004 an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted to the plaintiffs restraining the defendants its Chairman, Directors, Promoters, Officers, Servants, Agents and any one acting on their behalf from using the mark havell s or the corporate name havell s Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on any of their brochures, products and packaging. By means of IA 75/2005, defendants pray that the ex parte ad interim injunction be vacated. Arguments were heard on both applications on 31. 1. 2005. Plaintiffs filed IA No. 1906/2005 and prayed for leave to file some documents which as per plaintiffs were relevant for determination of the issues raised. Application was allowed vide order dated 10. 3. 2005. Defendants were granted liberty to file documents in rebuttal. Needful has seen done by the defendants.
( 2 ) ONE Shri Haveli Ram Gandhi commenced business in electrical goods in the year 1942 and traded under the n
Bengal Waterproof Ltd. v. Bombay Waterproof Manufactures Co. and Anr.
Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Shri Lalji Mai and Anr.
Ruston and Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engineering Co.
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratan Pharmaceutical Laboratories
Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet MachinesPvt. Ltd.
Montari Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Montari Overseas Ltd.
Vessrunal Praveen Kumar v. Needle Industries (India) Ltd. and Anr.
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.