Which of the following cases is NOT related to trade mark dilution under section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
Question and options
Which of the following cases is NOT related to trade mark dilution under section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
- Rolex SA v. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. (2009)
- ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA (2010)
- Blue Hill Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Leyland Limited (2011)
- Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Murugan Enterprises (2008)
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D - Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Murugan Enterprises (2008)
Hawkins Cookers v. Murugan Enterprises concerned the use of 'Hawkins' on replacement gaskets and the exception in section 30(2)(d) for accessories and spare parts, not dilution under section 29(4). Rolex v. Alex Jewellery, ITC v. Philip Morris and Blue Hill Logistics v. Ashok Leyland (the 'Luxura' case) all discuss dilution of marks with a reputation in India.
Practice for these exams
-
All India Bar Examination (AIBE)
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
UGC NET Law
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
IIT Kharagpur LL.M. Entrance
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
CUSAT CAT Integrated IPR Ph.D.
-
CUET PG Law (LL.M.)
Subject revision
-
Trade Marks Agent
Subject revision
Related question papers
Related exam syllabi
More solved explanations in Trade Marks Act, 1999
- 'ZENOVA' is a well-known trade mark in India for smartphones. Raghav applies to register 'ZENOVA' for pressure cookers, and the smartphone maker opposes. Under…
- Which of the following statements is true in case of a registered trade mark?
- Section 16(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 lets the Registrar dissolve the association of associated trade marks. Under rule 54(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017,…
- Which statement is true in respect of the Trade Marks?
- As per the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the fee on an application under rule 34 for EXPEDITED PROCESS of an application for the registration of a trade mark (i.e. by…