The case of KMG International Ltd. v. KMG Industrial Traders
Ltd. [2008 (37)PTC 548 (Del.)] witnesses the Court taking a
view on trademark disputes whereby the parties belonged to the same
group or had a common origin. KMG International Ltd. (KMGI)
litigating against KMG Industrial Traders Ltd. (KMGIT) had been
injuncted against from using the mark "KMG" and also the
logo on its letter head, printing and packaging material by the
Trial court under a reasoned order. KMGIT in the present matter
pleaded that they were a registered company and manufacturers,
importers and sellers of electric goods including CFL lamps. They
also stated that they had acquired registration of the trademark
and logo and thus by virtue of the Trademark Act, had an exclusive
right in the same. They further alleged that KMGI had started
manufacturing CFL bulbs as well.
The Court noted that the plaint disclosed that the two parties
were associated; however the same was not elaborated in the plaint.
KMGI stated of its establishment in 1976 and stated that
"KMG" was being used on its letter head since then. A
reference to a publication tracing the establishment and history of
the incorporation was also brought forth the Court. They also
stated that the company had obtained registration of
"KMG" as a trademark and the logo as a copyright and KMGI
used both of these in relation to CFL bulbs since 2002. They also
pleaded that they were earlier known as Rahul Jee & Co. and
underwent a change in name in 2001. It was also noted that KMGIT
was earlier known as Industrial General Traders. They pleaded that
KMG logo belonged to the KMG Group and the same could be utilized
The court took note of the contents of the Article presented, as
also the logo and the common domain name being used by the group.
The High Court opined that the Trial Judge had ignored the impact
of the common domain name and logo, as also the common signing
authority in their dealings evidencing the sale of CFL bulbs. The
Court noted that the Trial Court had failed to draw an inference
from the documents, with regard to the joint ownership of the logo
and mark by the group, as also the consistent use of the same with
regard to CFL bulbs. The High Court also stated that mere
registration was not sufficient to defeat the claim of a prior
Restoring the application for injunction, the High Court
restored the same for a fresh decision, opining that the same be
made mindful of the umbilical cord binding the parties and that the
two were marching under the same banner until 2006.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).