Law: Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)

Section: 25

(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--S.25---Vested rights of registered trade mark owners---Savings---Proof of prior user---Appellant company asserted that it had been the prior user of disputed trade mark since 1997 but failed to establish the same---Effect---Appellant having prima facie failed to establish its being prior user, it could not seek benefit of exceptions provided under S.25 of Trade Marks Act, 1940. (b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--- ----S.23---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Interim injunction, appeal against---Registered trade mark, infringement of---Adoption of foreign trade mark---Visual similarity in appearance of trade marks---Plaintiff company claimed to be the proprietor of trade mark "MAAZA" as the same had been registered in its name and sought injunction against defendant company for the use of the said trade mark---High Court, in exercise of original civil jurisdiction, granted interim injunction in favour of plaintiff company--­Plea raised by defendant company was that it had adopted foreign trade mark---Validity---Plaintiff company in support of its claim had placed on record material which prima facie established its ownership over the trade mark---Registration of trade mark, under S.23 of Trade Marks Act, 1940, was prima facie evidence of validity in all legal proceedings related to a trade mark and the registered trade mark could be exclusively used by its owner as long as such registration under Trade Marks Act, 1940, remained intact--­Registered trade mark was a property and its evasion could be restrained under S.54 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, by injunctive order---Infringement of a registered trade mark was recognized in law, if a party ,approaching the Court could establish its registered title besides the alleged infringement---Law did not recognize adoption of foreign trade mark by a local company, which in the present case, the defendant company had done---Nothing was available on record which could reflect that the defendant company at any point of time was in the business of soft drink and was the user of disputed trade mark---Plaintiff company had…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492