Skip to main content

K. Narayanan And Anr vs S. Murali on 5 August, 2008 - (2008) 10 SCC 479

By
CAN MERELY FILING A TRADEMARK APPLICATION FOR A MARK CONSTITUTES PASSING OFF?

The court in the case of K.Narayana and Another Vs. S.Murali held that merely filing a Trademark does not constitute passing off. For Passing Off need to be established, there should be misrepresentation in the course of trade which is very essential ingredient for establishment of the passing off case.

The relevant paragraphs from the judgement are provided below:-

Para 23- It was finally argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent before us, that, by merely filing a trade mark application, the respondent did not misrepresent in the course of trade that his goods were the goods of the appellants and therefore there was no cause of action for filing a suit for passing off, which necessarily required sale of one's goods deceptively as though it were the goods of another.

Para 24- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully examining the aforementioned judgment of the High Court and also of the learned Single Judge,  we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court holding that, before registration is granted for the trade mark, there is no right in the person to assert that the mark has been infringed and that a proposed registration which may, or may not be granted will not confer a cause of action to the plaintiff, whether the application for registration is filed by the plaintiff, or the defendant. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

IPAB has allowed an appeal and granted patent to Pfizer for Tofacitinib and its salts

By
                                                    In a decision dated 21st August 2020 IPAB vide its  Order  has allowed an appeal and granted Patent  to Appellant M/s. PFIZER PRODUCTS INC., USA  for Tofacitinib and its salts. The appeal is against the   order dated 3 rd  September 2015 passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, whereby the Appellant’s Indian patent application no. 00991/MUMNP/2003 was rejected on the ground that it is hit by section 13(1)(b) and being non-patentable under section 3(d). The Appellant requested for an urgent hearing of the matter and IPAB considered the request for urgent hearing and passed the present order.  This Patent application claimed the compound 3-{(3R,4R)-4-Methyl-3-[methyl-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-yl)-amino]-piperidin-1-yl}-3-oxo-propionitrile and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof (Tofacitinib and its salts) and was refused by the patent office on various grounds, including anticipation by p
Post a Comment
Read more

Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh Tenure as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) extended for Another three months

By
  The Supreme Court on September 16, 2020 has extended the tenure of Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board)  for another three months.  Justice Manmohan Singh was appointed on July 2017 for a term of three years.  However as per the rules governing the appointment his term would come to an end on attaining retirement age of 65 years on 22nd September 2019. Since Government has not appointed any Chairman thereafter, on a Petition by International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) the Supreme Court has extended his term for another year i.e, till 21st September 2020 as the Petitioner claimed that IPAB will be Defunct with his retirement thereby causing hardship several litigants. The Central Government has notified in March 2020 that Justice Singh will continue as the chairman of IPAB up to September 21, 2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.  Now with this extension, Honourable Justice Manmoha
Post a Comment
Read more

Punitive Damages for Infringement of Trade Dress by Delhi High Court in an Interim Application

By
Delhi High Court vide its Judgement dated 31st July 2018 in  Louboutin-3 case has granted permanent injunction and punitive damages against a Delhi based retailer for infringing the famed ‘Red Sole’ trademark of Christian Loubutin.  The Plaintiff‟s "RED SOLE" trademark, i.e. , wherein a specific tone of colour red (Pantone no. 18.1663TP) is applied to the outsole of a shoe, is unique in its own accord and became known in the world of fashion only after being introduced by the Plaintiff herein as their Trade Dress. The consumers in India identify the Plaintiff as the sole proprietor of the Christian Louboutin trademarks including the "RED SOLE" trademark and any use of the said trademarks by an unrelated entity will entail taking undue advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, which has been built painstakingly over the several decades; The Defendants are located in Kamla Nagar Market, New Delhi, who were found to be dealing in infringing
Post a Comment
Read more