Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 16 docs - [View All]
Man Mohan Sharma vs Manjit Singh on 22 December, 2016
Data Infosys Ltd. And Ors. vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. on 5 February, 2016
Stokely Van Camp Inc & Anr vs Heinz India Private Ltd. on 3 September, 2012
Nippon Soda Co. Ltd. vs V.P. Goyal And Anr on 28 February, 2014
M/S Gufic Ltd. & Another vs Clinique Laboratories, Llc & Anr on 9 July, 2010

[Section 124] [Complete Act]
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Central Government Act
Section 124(1) in The Trade Marks Act, 1999
(1) Where in any suit for infringement of a trade mark—
(a) the defendant pleads that registration of the plaintiff’s trade mark is invalid; or
(b) the defendant raises a defence under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 30 and the plaintiff pleads the invalidity of registration of the defendant’s trade mark, the court trying the suit (hereinafter referred to as the court), shall,—
(i) if any proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the plaintiff’s or defendant’s trade mark are pending before the Registrar or the Appellate Board, stay the suit pending the final disposal of such proceedings;
(ii) if no such proceedings are pending and the court is satisfied that the plea regarding the invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff’s or defendant’s trade mark is prima facie tenable, raise an issue regarding the same and adjourn the case for a period of three months from the date of the framing of the issue in order to enable the party concerned to apply to the Appellate Board for rectification of the register.