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

1993 Supreme(Del) 544

SAT PAL
M. SONI AND COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
CHOWDHARI AND COMPANY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.R.Bhalerao, V.P.Ghiraya

SAT PAL, J.

( 1 ). This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule I and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. In this application it has been prayed that the respondent through its proprietor or partners, servants, agents, dealers, representatives and all others acting for and on its behalf be restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale advertising, directly and indirectly dealing in parts and fittings of bicycles, cycles parts and other cognate under the trade mark SAINICO or any other trade mark as may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to applicant s registered trade mark SONICO. The application has been opposed by the respondent in their reply to this application.

( 2 ). Mr. Ghiraiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the registered owner and proprietor of the trade mark SONICO with device of a BUST underregistration No. 234098 dated 9th March, 1966 in class-12 inrespect of bicycle and cycle parts. He furtheer submitted that the plaintiff had adopted the trade mark SONICO with device of BUST in the year 1958 and the aforesaid trade mark SONICO has been continuously used in the course of trade a




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