REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Tata Sia Airlines Limited Appellant

V/S

Vistara Voyages Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MADANLAL JALAN VS. MADANLAL [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.,VS. JHARIA TALKIES & COLD STORAGE (P) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
K.NARAYANAN AND OTHERS VS S.MURALI [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER DISTILLERIES VS. SASHI DISTILLERIES [REFERRED TO]
DR.P.S.RAO VS. THE UNION GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ELECTION COMMISSION INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HIRA LALPATNI VS. KALI NATH [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN RAMAI VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHIDAMBARAM MULRAJ AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY 1 [REFERRED TO]
A B C LAMINART PRIVATE LIMITED VS. A P AGENCIES SALEM [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. UTPAL KUMAR BASU [REFERRED TO]
NAVINCHANDRA N MAJITHIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
EXPHAR SA VS. EUPHARMA LABORATORIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM INGOTS AND ALLOYS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
USHA MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DHODHA HOUSE VS. S K MAINGI [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ALCHEMIST LIMITED VS. STATE BANK OF SIKKIM [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU VS. R K MISHRA ADDL COMMISSIONER OF IT [REFERRED TO]
NEW HORIZONS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
FRANK FINN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS VS. SUBHASH MOTWANI [REFERRED TO]
D MUNIRANGAPPA VS. AMIDAYALA VENKATAPPA [REFERRED TO]
ANJANA MATCH WORKS VS. MATCH GOA PRIVATE LTD [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. VASUDEVA RAO [REFERRED TO]
S S Jain and Co VS. Union of India [REFERRED TO]
TIMES PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD VS. REGISTRAR OF NEWSPAPERS OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUBHIKSHA TRADING SERVICES LTD VS. AZIM H PREMJI [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT SINGH BUGGA VS. DEWAN JAGBIR SAWHNEY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL MATRIX

(2.) Plaintiff has further contended that the defendant which is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 on 05.11.2013 has commenced its business to provide Airport and allied services to domestic and international airlines which company is a joint venture between Tata Sons Ltd., and Singapore Airlines Ltd., and it intends to create a brand name for them by the name "Vistara", which is identical and deceptively similar to that of the trade mark of the plaintiff. Hence, on the grounds set out in the plaint it has sought for the reliefs noted hereinabove. On the same lines an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction also came to be filed.

(3.) On service of suit summons defendant appeared filed its written statement and also objections to the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Simultaneously defendant also filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of CPC, 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint or in the alternate to return the plaint for being presented before jurisdictional Court contending interalia that there is no cause of action for the suit and same is liable to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and defendant is not carrying on any business in India and also the meetings between the parties does not confer jurisdiction, by giving rise to a cause of action for filing the suit. It was also contended that benefit of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 would not extend to a person whose trade mark application is pending before the Registrar. This amongst other grounds defendant sought for rejection of the plaint.

Click here to view full judgment.

TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED Vs. VISTARA VOYAGES

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address