Skip to main content

Trade marks are not for 'hoarding'

The Supreme Court stated last week that a company cannot claim the right to a trade mark if it registers the name but does not use it for a long time. It would be assumed that the company, by its lethargic conduct, had abandoned its right. In this case, Neon Laboratories Ltd vs Medical Technologies Ltd, two pharma companies were disputing over the trade mark of similar sounding brand names. Medical Technologies argued that its product named Profol for the compound Propofol was being confused with that of Neon’s Rofol. Therefore it filed a suit alleging ‘passing off’. The trial court and the Gujarat High Court passed injunctions in its favour. Therefore, Neon approached Supreme Court. It dismissed the appeal stating that Neon had registered the name in 1992 but started marketing its brand only in 2004, much after the rival company launched its product in the market. The judgment stated that “t he Trade Marks Act does not permit the hoarding of or appropriation without utilisation of a trade mark.”  Neon even allowed or acquiesced in the marketing of the rival product for several years. “The legislative intent is to ordain that an applicant of a trade mark does not have a permanent right by virtue of its application alone,” the court declared and added: “Such a right is lost if it is not exercised within a reasonable time.”

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/trade-marks-are-not-for-hoarding-115101100811_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more