SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

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