Back
ANITA SUMANTH
Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records of the order of the 2nd respondent in his order CA.No.11/Sec.16/RD (SR)/2020- 21 dated 09.04.2021 and to quash the same as being illegal and unsustainable in law.
The petitioner had challenged an order dated 09.04.2021 of R2 being the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, directing it to change its name within three months from that date.
2. One M/s.Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited (R3) had approached R2 with a petition under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act) for rectification of the name of the petitioner. The petition has come to be accepted on the ground that the trademark of the petitioner (Shaktiman) is identical to the trademark of R3 and hence seeking a direction to the petitioner to change its name.
3. Before R2, the arguments of R3, as reiterated before me, were that R3 was incorporated as a private limited company on 26.07.2000. It is engaged in the manufacture of machinery, plant, equipment, tools and implements for the agricultural industry. It is the registered owner of the trademark ‘Shaktiman’
The prior user of a trademark holds exclusive rights, and similarity in name constitutes a bar against adoption by a subsequent user.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of limitation laws, the need for reasonable diligence, and the exclusive nature of the suo-motu power vested with the Central Govern....
Dishonest adoption of identical abbreviated mark in same field, without bona fides explanation and false prior use claim, defeated by prior global/India rights via registrations, franchises, domains,....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the application of the new enactment replacing the old....
A well-known trademark is entitled to protection against identical and similar marks, as well as dissimilar goods, especially when registration is obtained in bad faith.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act to determine the likelihood of confusion based on phonetic similarity and the priority....
A company cannot use a name that is identical or similar to the name of an existing company if such use is likely to cause confusion among the public or infringe the existing company's trademark or g....
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
