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

2004 Supreme(Del) 674

R.S.SODHI
TEE GEE HOSIERY WORKS – Appellant
Versus
GROVERNORS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.K.BANSAL, S.Rajan

R. S. Sodhi, J.

( 1 ) FAO 97/1987 is directed against the order dated 9th April, 1987 of the additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 146/1986, whereby the learned Judge while disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, has allowed the same and injuncted the appellant herein from using the trade mark "splash," which was not registered at that time.

( 2 ) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that during the pendency of this appeal, the order of injunction dated 9th April, 1987, passed by the Additional district Judge was stayed by this Court vide order dated 23rd April, 1987 and thereafter, the appellant has acquired the registration of the trade mark "splash" and therefore, vide order dated 16th May, 1988 of this Court, the interim order dated 23rd April, 1987 was confirmed. Counsel further submits that since the appellant now holds a registered trademark "splash", no inunction would lie against the appellant and that the only remedy available to the respondent is to have the trade mark cancelled, if at all.

( 3 ) HEARD counsel for the appellant. Nobody appears for the respondent. The submission made by counsel for the appellant appears to be valid in view of section

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