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

1967 Supreme(Mad) 488

M.ANANTANARAYANAN, M.NATESAN
Collector of Central Excise, Madras – Appellant
Versus
A. P. Basava Prabhu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:S. Govindswaminathan, C. Radhakrishnan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

M. ANANTANURAYANAN, C.J.

The appeal is instituted by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, from the Judgment of Srinivasan, J. In W.P. No. 897 of 1962 allowing the petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition filed by the Proprietor of Messrs T.C. Nagalingappa and Company, Madras. The point involved is a very simple one and, since the relevant provisions have been dealt with somewhat extensively by the Learned Judge (Srinivasan, J.) in allowing the Writ, we think that it is sufficient if we focus attention upon the only issue that arises for our determination.

2.The facts are not in dispute. Eucalyptus oil is a pharmaceutical preparation, under the Indian Pharmacopoeia, and it is not the exclusive product of any individual proprietor. We have no doubt whatever that, if any person attempts to obtain a proprietary right in the words "Eucalyptus Oil" under the Law of Trade Marks, he will fail. But, persons like the writ petitioner (here respondent) do purchase eucalyptus oil in bulk, and market the product by repacking it in small and convenient bottles. The respondent has a licence under the Drugs Act for this purpose. As the Learned Judge points out, by Finance Act 2











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