w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Tee Gee Hosiery Works v/s Grovernors

Company & Directors' Information:- GEE LIMITED [Active] CIN = L99999MH1960PLC011879

Company & Directors' Information:- J G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101TZ2001PTC009707

Company & Directors' Information:- K D S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101PB2001FTC024327

Company & Directors' Information:- R M H HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17125DL2007PTC167271

Company & Directors' Information:- P T M HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52322WB1994PTC062394

Company & Directors' Information:- M G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17124TZ2002PTC010195

Company & Directors' Information:- D D HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U18101WB1973PTC028694

Company & Directors' Information:- M. B. HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC125110

Company & Directors' Information:- R R HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101MH1984PTC034394

Company & Directors' Information:- K K HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204MH2014PTC251777

Company & Directors' Information:- B B HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC267158

Company & Directors' Information:- M C S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311WB2001PTC093781

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HOSIERY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51311PB1985PTC006113

    FAD Appeal No. 97 of 1987

    Decided On, 26 August 2004

    At, High Court of Delhi


    For the Appearing Parties: S.K. Bansal, S. Rajan, Advocates.

Judgment Text


(1) FAO 97/1987 is directed against the order dated 9th April, 1987 of the additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 146/1986, whereby the learned Judge while disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, has allowed the same and injuncted the appellant herein from using the trade mark "splash," which was not registered at that time.

(2) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that during the pendency of this appeal, the order of injunction dated 9th April, 1987, passed by the Additional District Judge was stayed by this Court vide order dated 23rd April, 1987 and thereafter, the appellant has acquired the registration of the trade mark "splash" and therefore, vide order dated 16th May, 1988 of this Court, the interim order dated 23rd April, 1987 was confirmed. Counsel further submits that since the appellant now holds a registered trademark "splash", no inunction would lie against the appellant and that the only remedy available to the respondent is to have the trade mark cancelled, if at all.

(3) HEARD counsel for the appellant. Nobody appears for the respondent. The submission made by counsel for the appellant appears to be valid in view of section 28 (3) of the Trade Marks Act, which envisages the rights of the parties in a situation that has now arisen bet

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ween them. In that view of the matter, I set aside the order under challenge dated 9th April, 1987. FAO 97/1987 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.