Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Armasuisse – Appellant
Versus
Trade Mark Registry – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the parties and their positions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's objections to trademark registration. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. the concession made by respondent impacting the case. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. discussion on potential trademark use. (Para 12 , 13 , 17) |
| 5. legal standards for determining trademark eligibility. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. evidence submissions regarding deceptive trademark usage. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. relevance of global trademark laws. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. discussion on trademark law interpretation. (Para 33 , 34 , 40) |
| 9. court's observations on trademark laws' relative and absolute grounds. (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 10. final decision and order of the court. (Para 163 , 164) |
JUDGMENT :
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 158/2022, I.A. 20094/2022, I.A. 20095/2022 and I.A. 20096/2022
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 159/2022, I.A. 20153/2022, I.A. 20154/2022 and I.A. 20155/2022
1. These appeals involve cognate issues. Submissions advanced at the bar by both sides are also overlapping. As such, they have been taken up and disposed of together.
2. The appellant is a Federal Agency of the Swiss Federation, and procures armaments for Switzerland's Federal Department of Defence, Ci
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
