Jk Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v. Kana Ram Kalirana & Anr.

C/RA/161/2022

The Gujarat High Court disposed of a rectification petition filed by Jk Lakshmi Cement Ltd. against Kana Ram Kalirana & Anr. The court noted that the parties had entered into a settlement in another suit, wherein Respondent No. 1 undertook to abandon the impugned trademark registration. Consequently, the court directed the Trade Marks Registry to expedite the processing of the withdrawal application filed by the respondent, effectively allowing the matter to be resolved through administrative action.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Gujarat High Court
Case Number
C/RA/161/2022
Judge(s)
Nirzar S. Desai

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Gujarat High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Jk Lakshmi Cement Ltd. vs Kana Ram Kalirana & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 453/2022

Shabeer Ahmad BhatvsSushil Kumar Pathak

The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the petitioner seeking to correct a clerical error in a prior order. The correction involved changing the name of the entity receiving trademark assignments from 'Globiotech International' to 'M/s Glow Biotech Ltd', as stipulated in the underlying Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This minor but crucial rectification ensures the court record accurately reflects the parties' agreement regarding the assignment of trademarks.

trademark(T)OP(TM)/400/2023

Legrand France and Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt LtdvsPraveen Kumar Jain (Trading as Biocon Tapes India) and The Registrar of Trademarks

The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the trade mark register, successfully canceling an identical registration of 'LEGRAND' held by Praveen Kumar Jain. The court found that the petitioner, Legrand France, had prior and extensive use of the arbitrary mark since 1970 in India, while the respondent's goods (adhesive tapes) were complementary to the petitioner's electrical products (switches). Given the identical nature of the marks and the likelihood of public confusion due to overlapping distribution channels, the court ruled that the later registration was made without sufficient cause.

trademarkWP No.17350 of 2009

Umaid Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic CompanyvsUnion of India

The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as it related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial notice.

trademark

Pidilite Industries LimitedvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks, The Trade ...

Pidilite Industries Limited appealed against an order rejecting its interlocutory petition seeking to take further evidence in opposition proceedings. The dispute centered on the use and protection of their well-known trade marks ('FEVI', 'FEVICOL') against a similar mark ('FEVIDIP').

trademarkCOMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.252 OF 2019

Meher Distilleries Private LimitedvsShree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. alleging infringement of its artistic work and registered trade mark used on bottles for bottling country liquor. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks/works, subject to an undertaking by the defendant.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call