Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Trade Marks Act, 1940 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2(1)(2) |
Trade mark for use in respect of a limited area—perfectly valid.
|
M/S Crescent Pak Soap and Oil Mills Vs. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Chittagong | 17 DLR (SC) 163 |
Section 2(1)(e) |
Use of ‘Camel’ mark or design in one kind of product does not deprive
another of its use as a mark or design unless it is proved that such will
cause confusion in relation to a particular kind. of goods of long
standing—By registration of a design of camel it cannot be said that none
else can use it as a design.
|
M/S Crescent Pak Soap and Oil Mills Vs. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Chittagong | 17 DLR (SC) 163 |
Section 6(1)(d) |
The word ‘popular” in the present case though refers to quality of the goods yet not hit by section 6(1)(d), being registered as a trade mark with its surrounding settings along with the name of the company. Trade Marks, Chittagong Vs. Popular Polish house (1969)21 DLR (SC) 114. |
Trade Marks, Chittagong Vs. Popular Polish house | 21 DLR (SC) 114 |
Section 6(1) (d) and (e) |
The Trade Mark of "Bangladesh Yellow Pages" and the same having given in
due course with due notice to all in accordance with law, the same cannot
be removed from the register and the application has not been filed
bonafide and that there is no allegation the said Trade Mark is not being
used regularly by the opposite party No.2 and in the rectification
application the petitioner Company has not asserted any special
circumstances for which the registered Trade Mark may not be removed from
the register. The allegation as made is not bonafide and is harassing in
nature and the opposite party No.2 is continuously using the Trade Mark for
the last 13 years. "A review is by no means rehearing of the original
matter.
|
M/S Yellow Pages (Pvt.) Ltd. -Vs.- M/S Business Data Information Ltd. and another | 4 ALR (AD) 123 |
Section 10 (1) |
Executive Committee—Expiry of term-Appointment of Administrator—
|
Bangladesh Mudran Shilpa Samity Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and others | 2 MLR (AD) 383 |
Sections 10 & 46 |
Registration of identical or similar trade mark—Such registration in favour of two persons—About the propriety of such registration the Register has to satisfy himself and he may put conditions and limitations as he may think fit to impose. In permitting identical trademarks he has to provide for some ways and devices for protecting the interest of competing proprietors and the interest of the public in general to save them from possible deception and confusion. In the absence of fraud, there could be no direction under section 46 of the Act with regard to registration of trade mark. BCIC vs Sattar Match Works 44 DLR (AD) 208. |
BCIC vs Sattar Match Works | 44 DLR (AD) 208 |
Section 10(2) |
During the pendency of the appeal the mark has been registered in class-25 in favour of the respondent No. 1 and because of that the appeal has become infructuous as there is no scope for registering the mark under section 10(2) of the Act as the appellant could not make out any case of concurrent user of the mark as has been found by the High Court Division and, that there is no infirmity calling for interference. Sunil Kumar Das vs CANON Kabushiki Kaisha and another 10 BLC (AD) 92. |
Sunil Kumar Das vs CANON Kabushiki Kaisha and another | 10 BLC (AD) 92 |
Section 10 |
A buyer would be deceived by the similarity in the trade mark– The
findings of the High Court Division in respect of similarly of trademark
applies equally although the appellant has now changed his trademark to
‘Lucky Star’ in place of “Lucky” which was cancelled earlier. He is
manufacturing the very same goods under a slightly different but similar
sounding name.
|
Abdul Haque(Md.) =VS= Jamal Uddin Ahmed(Al-haj) | 9 LM (AD) 87 |
Sections 14 and 15(1) |
Application for registration of trade marks if on the face of it satisfies
the authority—should not be refused without objection from any quarter.
|
Trade Marks, Chittagong Vs. M/s. Popular Polish House | 21 DLR (SC) 114 |
Section 15 |
Rules framed by the Government prescribing time limit, are enforceable.
|
M/s. Crescent Pak Soap and Oil Mills Vs. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. Chittagong | 17 DLR (SC) 163 |
Section 16(1) |
Objection as to the bar of limitation by lapse of time not being raised,
the inference is that it is waived.
|
M/s. Crescent Pak Soap and Oil Mills Vs. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. Chittagong | 17 DLR (SC) 163 |
Section 21 |
Praying for a decree for permanent injunction. We are of the view justice
would be best served if the order of stay passed by this Court is continued
till disposal of the suit with direction upon the trial Court to dispose
the suit within a time frame. The appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:
|
Alam Soap Factory Ltd. =VS= Kazi Abu Hena Shamim Ahsan | 3 LM (AD) 5 |
Section 30 |
Appellate Divisions observed that it is true that question raised before
the Appellate Division was not raised either before the Assistant
Registrar or before the High Court Division, but it being a question of law
of substantial importance, Appellate Division cannot just ignore it on the
ground of non-raising the same before the statutory authority and the High
Court Division. Since the question would need determination of fact as
indicated hereinbefore, it should be thrashed out right before the
statutory authority. In that view of the matter, Appellate Division finds
no other alternative but to send the matter back to the Registrar Trade
Mark for hearing the opposition case filed by the petitioner afresh and
dispose of the same in the light of the observations made in the judgment
keeping in mind the provision of clause (a) of the proviso to section 30 of
the Act, 1940.
|
Sohan Kumar Agarwala -Vs.- Department of Patents Designs and Trade Marks | 6 ALR (AD) 116 |
Section 37 & 46 |
The petitioners’ case is that they only intended to manufacture OLYMPIC BALPEN at the time of incorporation of the company. Thus it appears that the commodity of respondent No. 2 was already in the market and naturally became popular among the people and they also obtained registration of the trade mark on 15.08.1990 and subsequently the same was renewed for another period for 15 years as per law. hence it is clear that the petitioners’ commodity was not in the market when the respondent’s commodity namely OLYMPIC BALPEN was in the market since 1988 and its registration was obtained —Held; The High Court Davison, therefore rightly held that the petitioners were not entitled to file applications for rectification of the trade mark registry as prayed for. Tripti Industries Ltd & Ors Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh. 15 BLT (AD)163 |
Tripti Industries Ltd & Ors Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh | 15 BLT (AD)163 |
Section 46 |
The High Court Division, considering the above position, allowed the application of the respondent No.1 and expunged the trade mark of the appellant, being No.38902 in class 29, from the Registry of Trade Marks and directed the Registrar to rectify the Registry accordingly. We are of the view that the High Court Division, on consideration of the materials on record and upon correct assessment of the provisions of law, allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 in accordance with law and accordingly no interference is called for. .....Samir Kumar Ghosh =VS= Anil Kumar Ghosh, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 403] ....View Full Judgment |
Samir Kumar Ghosh =VS= Anil Kumar Ghosh | 5 LM (AD) 403 |
Section 46(4) |
Cancellation of registration of trade mark obtained by practice of
fraud—
|
Unilac Sanowara (BD) Lid. Vs. Bonlnc Foods Ltd. and another | 14 MLR (AD) 91 |
Sections 46 & 10 |
Registration of identical or similar trademark—Such registration in favour of two persons—About the propriety of such registration the Registrar has to satisfy himself and he may put conditions and limitations as he may think fit to impose. In permitting identical trademarks he has to provide for some ways and devices for protecting the interest of competing proprietors and the interest of the public in general to save them .from possible deception and confusion. In the absence of fraud, there could be no direction under section 46 of the Act with regard to registration of trade mark. BCIC vs Sattar Match Works 44 DLR (AD) 208. |
BCIC vs Sattar Match Works | 44 DLR (AD) 208 |
Section 46 |
The point on maintainability of the proceeding pending before the High Court Division cannot be decided on interlocutory matter. The impugned order of stay appears to have been passed on sound ground which call for no interference. Abul Hussain (Md) vs Md Solaiman AH & another 6 BLC (AD) 109. |
Abul Hussain (Md) vs Md Solaiman AH & another | 6 BLC (AD) 109 |
Section 73 |
Infringiment of trade marks or Copy Rights—
|
Universal Phamaceuticals Ltd. and another Vs. Social Marketing Company | 2 MLR (AD) 200 |