Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Intel Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff in 2005 seeking permanent injunction against infringement of trademark, as also reliefs for passing off, damages, etc. in respect of its trademark 'CELERON', against Defendant No.1 - Mr. Rakesh Jain, Director of Defendant No.2, Defendant No.2 - Celeron Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Defendant No.3 - B M Electrovision.
3. In this matter, summons was issued vide order dated 1st December, 2005 and issues were framed thereafter. Once the leading of evidence commenced, the Plaintiff's witness PW-1 first appeared on 21st January, 2008. He was then partly cross-examined on 15th July, 2008 and since then, despite repeated opportunities, the Defendants had not further cross-examined the Plaintiffs and had not filed their evidence. Therefore, vide order dated 2nd December, 2013, their opportunity to lead evidence was closed. This matter has since been listed in the category of 'Finals Matters' and none has appeared for the Defendants on the last two dates in 2018 and in March, 2022. Vide previous order dated 9th March, 2022, intimation was also issued to ld. counsel
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademark rights under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, based on the Plaintiff's prior adoption and registration of....
The unauthorized use of a registered trademark by a third party, which adds confusion and dilutes its distinctiveness, constitutes infringement under trade mark law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the trademark 'INTEL' as a well-known trademark and the finding that its use by the Defendants constituted infringement and pass....
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction vacated for suppression of material facts in trademark infringement suit; plaintiff must disclose fully prior ownership, adverse orders, relationships with clean hands;....
The court found that an ex parte judgment can be granted under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC if the defendant fails to respond, ensuring that the plaintiffs' rights under their registered trademarks are uph....
Appellate court interferes with trial court's refusal of interim injunction in passing off where findings on mark as generic lack pleadings support, plaintiff shows prior use/secondary meaning, and d....
The court affirmed that prior use of a registered trademark provides substantial grounds for an injunction against similar marks, emphasizing deceptive similarity effects on consumer perception.
Point of Law : Trade mark – Copyright - delay per se may not always be sufficient to disentitle the plaintiff to grant of an interim order.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
