GORA MAL HARI RAM Vs. BHARAT SOAP
LAWS(DLH)-1983-2-20
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 16,1983

GORA MAL HARI RAM Appellant
VERSUS
BHARAT SOAP AND OIL INDUSTRIES Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

THAPSONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ASHOKA FOOD INDUSTRIES [LAWS(DLH)-1991-4-1] [REFERRED 1985 ARBI LR 49 10]
NATARAJ TOBACCO PRODUCTS CO VS. M D PATEL TOBACCO PRODUCTS CO [LAWS(DLH)-1994-9-57] [REFERRED]
JAGSONPAL PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. SENOR LABORATORIES [LAWS(DLH)-1996-7-113] [REFERRED]
PREMWATI BANSAL VS. GANPATI INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(DLH)-1999-9-82] [REFERRED]
MANOHAR SINGH CHADDA VS. SHEETAL SWEETS [LAWS(DLH)-2000-5-78] [REFERRED]
K M ASSOCIATES PVT LTD VS. GOOD TIMES PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2003-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. CEEAM AUTO INDUSTRIES [LAWS(DLH)-1990-5-5] [REFERRED]
WHEELS INDIA VS. S NIRMAL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-174] [REFERRED TO]
DURIAN INDUSTRIES LTD VS. PANKAJ RAO [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-284] [REFERRED TO]
JANE NORMAN LIMITED VS. JANE NORMAN RETAIL PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-285] [REFERRED TO]
CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. VS. MEDIPOL PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-193] [REFERRED TO]
CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD VS. MEDIPOL PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-320] [REFERRED TO]
PFIZER PRODUCTS, INC VS. MITTAL NATHALAL PATEL AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-360] [REFERRED TO]
FERRERO SPA AND ORS. VS. RAJ BAID AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-392] [REFERRED TO]
CENTURY CONTINUOUS STATIONERY PVT LTD VS. RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-1998-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
FANTECH PTY. LTD VS. ADEPT FANTECH INDIA PVT [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-313] [REFERRED TO]
PFIZER PRODUCTS VS. R.K. SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-331] [REFERRED TO]
CASTROL LTD. VS. PANDIT OIL COMPANY [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-332] [REFERRED TO]
BOMAN R IRANI VS. RASHID AHMAD MIRZA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-26] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.K.Kapur - (1.)We have heard this appeal after issuing a show cause notice to the defendants. As the subject-matter of the suit pending on the Original Side of the High Court was the issue of a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the impugned trade mark 'Savera', we thought an expeditious disposal of the appeal was necessary.
(2.)We have had advantage of the judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing an interim injunction and we have also been taken through the record of the case. The plaintiffs-appellants claimed that they had been manufacturing soap using the trade mark 'Savera' since 18th March, 1976, but this was disputed by the defendants. On the other hand, it was claimed that after an extensive inquiry and investigation in the market, they found that the impugned trade mark was used by two soap manufacturers under some territorial limits-one manufacturer was Ashoka Industries, who had a registered trade mark restricted to the district of Ujjain and there was a similar registration in favour of Raja Soap Factory in Mysore. It thus came about that the defendant bona fide adopted the trade mark 'Savera' and applied for the registration of the same on 9th October, 1980. It was also claimed that the defendants had been continuously and extensively using the trade mark and had widely advertised the same. It was claimed that the plaintiffs had watched till extensive publicity had been given and success achieved by the defendants before filing the suit and claiming the interim injunction.
(3.)The learned Single Judge refused the interim injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs also had no registered trade mark. It was held that there was no prima facie case to grant the injunction.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.