Back
JYOTI SINGH
Tata Sia Airlines Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
C.M. APPL. 11/2022 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C)-IPD 64/2021 & CM APPL. 47831/2019 and 10/2022
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider Petitioner's letter dated 23.08.2019 for inclusion of the trademark VISTARA . in the List of Well-Known Trademarks maintained by it, amongst other reliefs.
2. Factual expose to the extent relevant and captured in the writ petition is that the Petitioner is a joint venture between Tata Sons Private Limited and Singapore Airlines Limited, with Tata Sons holding majority stake of 51% in the Petitioner. It operates its full-service Airlines under the trademark VISTARA , both domestic and international and has a growing fleet of Aircrafts. On account of impeccable, excellent and efficient services provided, Petitioner's mark VISTARA has become a widely recognized and trusted brand in travel and hospitality sectors in India. VISTARA was adjudged as one of India's most promising brands in the year 2016. Several honours and awards have been earned by the Petitioner and its growing popularity
The Registrar must consistently apply relevant laws in trademark registration, ensuring procedural compliance, and cannot ignore third-party rights under the Trade Marks Act, allowing for comprehensi....
The court established that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a civil suit must be stayed if a rectification application regarding trademark validity is pending.
A plea regarding the invalidity of a trademark registration can be raised in a counter affidavit and is not restricted to a written statement under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting alternative remedies provided by the Trade Marks Act before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of In....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for distinctiveness of a mark for registration under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, and the need for the Registrar to p....
The right to cancel a trademark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act is independent of ongoing infringement suits and remains available for invocation regardless of related Section 124 implication....
The trial court must assess only the prima facie tenability of claims regarding trademark validity under Section 124, without delving into the merits of those claims.
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
