Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN
Sanjeev Kumar Juneja – Appellant
Versus
Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
1. Defendants are in revision aggrieved of order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-11) whereby Trial Court framed additional issue regarding validity of Trade Mark, but dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as '1999 Act') praying for grant of time to approach appropriate forum.
2. Plaintiff filed suit claiming ownership over registered Trade Mark 'ROOP MANTRA' and claimed infringement of its Trade Mark by the defendants and also alleged passing off.
3. As per the plaint, plaintiff is a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling medicinal & pharmaceutical preparations, cosmetics and other allied goods. Plaintiff claims to be a registered proprietor of trade mark ‘MANTRA’ under Registration No.1867357, dated 25.09.2009 in respect of medicines under 1999 Act. Plaintiff claims of having applied for registration of the said ‘MANTRA’ formative trade mark for various other products and claims that by virtue of prior, long, continuous, extensive and exclusive use, the mark has become distinctive with their products. As per th
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.
The trial court must only record prima facie satisfaction regarding the invalidity of a trademark under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act without detailed evaluation of evidence.
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.
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 court ruled that a suit not questioning trademark validity and filed solely for injunction does not invoke stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, emphasizing mandatory issue framing....
Trademark rectification petitions require a triable issue on validity to proceed; without this, claims are not maintainable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
In trademark infringement actions, a presumption of confusion arises if the defendant's mark is identical to that of the registered trademark, fostering the entitlement to interim injunction.
The court ruled that a suit for trademark infringement and passing off is maintainable even when both parties hold identical trademarks in different classes, emphasizing the need for adjudication on ....
Intellectual Property Law - Infringement of Trade mark - Passing off - while suit for infringement of trade mark has to be stayed under Section 124 of Trade Marks Act, when a rectification petition i....
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
