Find a Lawyer

POPULAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. versus MAAZA INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LL. C

Section 23 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 454 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XXXX, Rr 1 & 2 Interim Order, appeal against registered trademark, violation of adoption of foreign trade mark, trade The visual match at the exhibit of the marks was claimed by the plaintiff company to be owned by the trademark MAAZA because it was registered in the same name and the trademark High Court hereby submits the injunction against the defendant company under the exercise of original civil jurisdiction. What was asked Plaintiff's Company Plaintiff's point was that it had placed the foreign trade mark, Validity Platform, on record material in support of its claim, under section 23 of the Trademarks Act, Had established their ownership on the trademark. 1940 was the first evidence of authenticity in all legal proceedings relating to a trademark and the registered trademark could be used exclusively as long as the owner maintained such registration under the Trademarks Act, 1940. Was a property and its theft could be prevented under section 454 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, in violation of the registered trademark by illegal decree. However, if a party can approach the court and set up its registered title, the alleged infringement law does not permit the adoption of a foreign trade mark by a local company, which in the present case the defendant company has set something on record. Was also not available which may be reflected. That the defendant company was in the business of soft drinks at any time and that the trademark of the defendant was the client's attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Neelam lawyer