Having regard to the various contentions raised by the parties, the High Court rightly held that subject to the outcome of the suit, the respondent can pursue their application for registration of the device. Both parties have inter alia raised various contentions. Since the suit and the respondent’s application for registration of its label with the marks thereon under Class-30 is pending, we are not inclined to go into the merits of those contentions.
TRADEMARKS
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29 Trademark `BRAVIA’   Adoption of mark Phonetically similar Trademark `FRAVIA’   by the defendants is deceptively and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark `BRAVIA’ Plaintiff has been continuously using the mark `BRAVIA’.   Trade mark BRAVIA and FRAVIA are phonetically and  similar Letters `b’ and `f’ are written in running cursive writing, which is how prescriptions are usually written Marks are not just deceptively similar but are in fact identical.
TRADEMARKS
Section 124 of Act, is applicable only to suits for stay of infringement till final decision of pending rectifications. Having recourse to Section 151 of CPC, to stay proceedings in a suit for ‘passing off’, was uncalled for as Section 124 of Act, was very specific and made it clear that it was applicable only to suits for infringement.  Therefore suit for infringement of Trade mark,  stayed till final decision of pending rectification; suit filed by Plaintiff for ‘passing off’, however, will continue and was to be decided on its own merit.
TRADEMARKS
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 1, 2 – Trademark – Identical mark – Infringement – Injunction, granted the plaintiff has been able to prove the defendants adoption and using of trademark, trade dress, deceptively similar domain name, unequivocally amounts to the infringement of the plaintiffs registered domain name, trademark, trade dress etc and amounts to passing of their goods and business as this is without authorization/affiliation by the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs is entitle to a decree for reliefs prayed
TRADEMARKS
Mark of Respondent which was registered consists not only of words or picture but mark as a whole including placement of words, picture and over all layout of mark. On comparison of two marks as a whole, prima fade, impression gathered was that, essential features of registered Trade mark of Respondent had been identically shown in mark of Appellant and that there seemed to be over all similarity in two. It was likely to create confusion and prima facie appeared to be deceptive in its similarity. Once Court prima facie came to conclusion that, Respondent-Plaintiff had been able to show over all similarity and copying of essential features of registered Trade mark, irreparable loss or injury in absence of an order of temporary injunction had to be presumed.
TRADEMARKS
The appellant-plaintiff instituted the proceedings in Bangalore. The respondent-defendant raised an issue of territorial jurisdiction.  In view of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the plea of the appellant is that the proceedings can be instituted where instituting party is residing or carrying on its business. No doubt, the appellant has an office at Bhopal but according to the averments in the plaint the violation of the Trade Mark took place at Rajpur, District Barwani, Madhya Pradesh.  In view of this factual position, the Court at Bangalore has jurisdiction to decide the case in accordance with law.
TRADEMARKS
No plea has been raised by the Defendant No. 1 in its written statement of wanting to file rectification proceedings before IPAB to cancel the registration of the Plaintiff’s Trade mark, no amendment was applied to the written statement prior to framing of issues to bring forth the pleading to seek remedy of approaching IPAB for cancellation of the registered Trade mark of the Plaintiff, the fact that rectification proceedings have been initiated now seven years later from framing of issues, and that too after substantial evidence has been led by the Plaintiff, such a prayer now sought obviously not only is barred in view of ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Field Marshal Agencies but the endeavour of the Defendant No. 1 was wholly mala fide
TRADEMARKS