NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

Sumeet Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Dilip Kumar Jain and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (28 Oct 2015)

Bombay High Court lends a helping hand to ‘Sumeet’

MANU/MH/3002/2015

Intellectual Property Rights

The Bombay High Court held that the Defendant’s use of the mark ‘Sumeet’ was in infringement of the trade mark registered by the Plaintiff. Defendant’s claims that its similar mark ‘Sumeet sassaki’ was inspired by their deceased son were not accepted by the Court for not explaining why Defendant had modeled ‘Sumeet’ identically to the Plaintiff. It found inconsistencies and possible fabrication in the evidence produced, purporting to show assignment of mark to the Defendant.

Relevant : Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v India Stationery Products Co & Anr. MANU/DE/0003/1990 Winthrop Products Inc v Eupharma Laboratories Ltd.MANU/MH/0094/1997

Tags : SUMEET   TRADEMARK   APPLIANCES   FABRICATION   ASSIGNMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved