[aaykarbhavan] Judgments and Information [4 Attachments]
| Dismisses injunction application filed after 'unconscionable' delay, rejects 'Bal Pharma' principle reliance | HC dismisses plaintiff's injunction application against defendants' use of trademarks 'ALERFIX' & 'ALERFIX-M', alleging them to be similar to its registered trademark 'ALLERFEX', on the ground of 'unconscionable', 'unexplained' delay in filing suit; Observes that despite defendants' specific denial to comply with plaintiff's cease and desist notice sent in November 2010 and increase in defendants' sales and promotional expenditure over the period, plaintiff did not take any resultant action and filed the instant suit only in 2014; Holds that, "a proprietor of the trade mark who knowingly watches his competitor grow in the market and takes no action can claim no exclusivity in his own trade mark"; Rejects plaintiff's reliance on Bombay HC observations in Bal Pharma Ltd. v. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. to contend that defendants should have taken honest and conscientious trade mark search before adopting the mark, states "Bal Pharma principle can only apply where the Plaintiff moves in a reasonable time-frame...Bal Pharma does not give a carte blanche to a plaintiff to bring suit after an inordinate and unexplained delay":Bombay HC | Absence of trade activity no defence for association to use other's mark |
|
|
|
|
Equates claim 'abandonment' to 'withdrawal' of petition, allows fresh civil suit | HC Division Bench allows appeal, holds as unjustified Single Judge's Order rejecting appellant's suit on the reasoning that appellant had abandoned those claims before CLB and allowing fresh suit on those claims would be an abuse of process of law; Peruses appellant's abandonment application made before CLB, states "though the word 'abandon' is used, virtually the appellants intended it as withdrawal"; Further observes that "Using of word 'abandon' cannot be read in isolation. The averments of application in its entirety and especially the leave to institute fresh proceedings in the prayer column have to be read together in order to understand the purport of the application indicating the intention of the applicants..."; On the question that allowance would result into abuse of legal process, holds "reliefs sought in the present civil suit need not be pressed by the appellants before the Company Law Board. In that situation, there will not be abuse of process of law":Calcutta HC | The ruling was delivered by Chief Justice Dr. Manjula Chellur and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Appellants were represented by Advocates Jishnu Saha, P.K. Jhunjhunwala and Sohail Haque while respondents were represented by Advocates Ranjan Deb, Madhu Priya, Ratnanko Banerjee, Aniruddha Roy, Jaydip Kar and Siddhartha Banerjee. |
|
__._,_.___
View attachments on the web
Posted by: Dipakkumar Shah <cadjshah@yahoo.com>
receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.
To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 
No comments:
Post a Comment