Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC and ORS Versus AGILENT CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.

2013 (3) TMI 777 - DELHI HIGH COURT

CS(OS) 227/2013 and IA No.1913/2013 - Dated:- 6-3-2013 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW For the Appellant : Mr. C.M. Lall and Ms. Ankita Ubeja, Advs. O R D E R 1. As per the affidavit of service filed by the plaintiffs, the defendant has been served. 2. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that in fact the Managing Director of the defendant had telephonically contacted the office of the counsel for the plaintiffs after receiving the summons. 3. There is no reason to doubt the afores .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

endant choosing not to contest, the suit itself can be disposed of on the basis of affidavit accompanying the plaint and the documents filed therewith. 8. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit for restraining the defendant company from using the domain and corporate names with the word AGILENT. It is inter alia the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is the proprietor of the following Trademarks: Sl. No. Trademark Date of Registration Class 1. AGILENT 29.07.1999 09,10,16 (vide separ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder the said domain name is still under construction and is not active till now. 9. Though the business of the defendant is relating to construction, falling in a different class than the registrations in favour of the plaintiff but it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs Trademark is a 'Well Known Trademark' within the meaning of Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and the plaintiffs have a reputation in India and use by the defendant of the word AGILENT in its trade .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

opia, European Union (CTM), Federation of Russia, Ghana, Hong Kong, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, United Kingdom, the United States of America and Venezuela; that in fact the plaintiff No.1 owns 659 registration for the Trademark AGILENT in 183 countries; that Agilent is a coined word with no independent meaning; that the plaintiff No.1 has a long history of inno .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ort and transaction processing in India alone; that the plaintiffs global revenues for the year 2011 were in excess of $6.6 billion; that the plaintiffs Trademark AGILENT is featured in a number of international publications and publications in India including the ?Times of India? and ?Asian Scientist?; that the plaintiffs as part of their corporate social responsibility contribute in the filed of education, environment and human services; that the employees of the plaintiffs volunteer regularly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The counsel for the plaintiffs has in this regard also drawn attention to Smt. S. Charat Ram Vs. M/s Usha Rectifier MANU/DE/0301/1996, Apple Computer Inc. Vs. Apple Leasing and Industries 1992 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter 93, Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft Vs. Hybo Hindustan AIR 1994 Delhi 239, N.R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corporation (1996) 5 SCC 714 and the recent dicta dated 09.07.2012, though on an application for interim relief but discussing the entire case law on the subject, in CS(OS) No. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

will so as to claim, even if honest, concurrent user for long with the plaintiffs. The defendant, by not responding to the legal notice preceding the suit and by not responding to this suit appears to be indulging in a porcupine like conduct and cannot avoid the consequence thereof. 14. In the context of the plea of the plaintiffs of a ?Well Known Trademark?, the averments of the plaintiffs of having its office since the year 2001 in Delhi, Manesar, Bangalore, Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Ahemdab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version