Trademark Search And Judgments

Could you please elaborate on your legal issue related to the trademark? This will help me provide you with the most relevant information.

Sure, I can help you with that!
A certification trademark is used to show that goods or services comply with a certain set of standards. Here are the steps to conduct a certification trademark search in India:
- Visit the official website of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) at ipindiaonline.gov.in.
- Use the 'Public Search' feature.
- Select the appropriate class for your goods/services.
- Enter the relevant keyword(s) related to your certification trademark.
- Review the search results to identify any similar existing trademarks.
Is there anything specific you need help with in this process?

The case of Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs. The Zamindara Engineering Co. (*) is a landmark judgment in Indian trademark law. Here's a brief summary of the key points:
- Facts: Ruston & Hornsby Ltd., an English company, owned the trademark "Ruston". The Zamindara Engineering Co. started using "Rustam India" on similar goods.
- Issue: Whether "Rustam India" was deceptively similar to "Ruston".
- Judgment: The Supreme Court held that "Rustam India" was indeed deceptively similar to "Ruston" and restrained Zamindara from using the trademark.
Would you like more details on the implications of this case or have any other questions?

Case Rating: *
The case of "Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs. The Zamindara Engineering Co. (*)" is significant in understanding trademark infringement in India. The Supreme Court ruled that "Rustam India" was deceptively similar to "Ruston," thereby highlighting the importance of protecting trademarks against similar marks.
Is there another aspect of trademark law you need assistance with?

Case Rating: *
Here are a few other landmark judgments related to the Trademark Act in India:
- Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (*): Established the test for deceptive similarity, emphasizing the importance of phonetic similarity.
- Amritdhara Pharmacy vs. Satya Deo Gupta (*): Dealt with the confusion caused by phonetic similarity.
- Honda Motors Co. Ltd. vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors. (*): Established the principle of trans-border reputation.
Is there a specific case or aspect you need more details on?

Case Rating: *
Sure! Here's a brief summary of the case "Honda Motors Co. Ltd. vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors. (*)":
- Facts: Honda Motors, a well-known automobile manufacturer, claimed that Charanjit Singh & Ors. were using the trademark "Honda" for pressure cookers.
- Issue: Whether the use of "Honda" by Charanjit Singh & Ors. for pressure cookers infringed on the trademark of Honda Motors.
- Judgment: The court held that Honda Motors had a trans-border reputation, and the use of "Honda" by Charanjit Singh & Ors. was likely to cause confusion. The court restrained the defendants from using the trademark "Honda".
Would you like more details on the implications of this case or have any other questions?

Case Rating: *
Section * of the Companies Act, * relates to rectification of the name of a company. Here are the key points:
- If a company is registered with a name identical or similar to an existing company, it can be directed to change its name.
- The central government may issue such a direction within 3 years of incorporation.
- The company must comply within 6 months of the direction.
Do you need more specific information on how this applies to your case?

Case Rating: *
Section *(*)(b) of the Companies Act, * states:
- If a company, through inadvertence or otherwise, is registered with a name identical or similar to an existing company, the central government may direct it to change its name.
- The company must comply with this direction within 6 months from the date of the direction.
Do you need more details on the procedure to change the company name?