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

1991 Supreme(Del) 8

MOHINDER NARAIN
HIDESIGN – Appellant
Versus
HI-DESIGN CREATIONS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.N.Prabhakar, S.C.Gulati

Mahinder Narain

( 1 ) THE plaintiff Mrs. Pampa Kapoor is carrying o the business under the name of M/s HIDESIGN at and from 4, Caserne Stree? Post Box No. 92, Pondicherry. It is stated in the plaint that she is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, exporting and selling feather garments, bags, belts, brief cases, wallets etc. for the past several years.

1a. It is asserted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff adopted the trade mark HIDESIGN, which was represented in a special and particular manner on 5. 5. 1977. tt is stated that the plaintiff used the mark not only as a trade mark, but also a trade description, and it is further stated that the said mark appears permanently on all the products and all the literature of the plaintiff during the course of her business.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff claims that she is the prior adopter of the said t A mark vis-a-vis the defendant, and is entitled to use the said name as a prior adopter of the said "design". It is also asserted that in view of the established business and sale promotion and extensive and continuous regular commercial user, the said trade mark HIDESIGN had acquired secondary meaning with regard to the goods of the p





























































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