Search Results Page

Search Results

71 - 80 of 178 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs Swiss Pharma Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 17 August, 2001

"In our opinion, in the present case, three tests to which reference has been made above, have to be applied. The first one is this : Is there any special aspect of the common feature which has been copied? The second test will be with reference to the 'mode in which the parts are put together differently? That is to say whether the dissimilarity of the part or parts is enough to mark the whole thing dissimilar (Kerly Para 17.17 referred to above). The third test is whether when there are common elements, should one not pay more regard to the parts which are not common, while at the same time not disregarding the common parts? What is the first impression?"
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - D P Buch - Full Document

Anwar Mohammad Khan Son Of Sri ... vs Sri Taj Mohammad Khan Son Of Sri ... on 22 March, 2006

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also stressed that there is no pleading of "passing off in terms of Section 27(2) of the Act, 1999 and, therefore, it could not be the basis for awarding any relief. The trial court erred in basing its judgment and order on the fact that the plaintiffs were using the trademark from before the same was being used by the appellant-defendant. Learned Counsel for the appellant stressed that in view of the observations made by the apex Court in the case of S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. (AIR 2000 S.C. 2114 (partly overruled by (Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to the extent 'dissimilarity' and not 'similarity' to essential feature had to be taken into consideration) as far as the user of the trademark which has been registered would be illegal but there was no infringement of an unregistered trademark and in view of the same no strict view could at all be taken by the court if the appellant-defendant had been using some portion of the unregistered trademark of the plaintiffs. It has also been submitted that in respect with 'passing off three ingredients namely, 'disclosure of goodwill', 'demonstration of misrepresentation' and 'suffering or likelihood of suffering of irreparable harm and injury in terms of reputation or money' are required to be present which arc not present and established and the court below has confused with the rights under the Copy Rights Act and the Act, 1999 and proceeded as if the case was instituted under 'passing off whereas the plaint is absolutely silent on this point.
Allahabad High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - V C Misra - Full Document

Century Plyboards (India) Ltd. vs Assam Wood And Allied Products on 20 April, 2005

In the case of S.M. Chopra & Sons (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was considering the two trade marks "Raja" and "Maharaja" and according to the Division Bench, those are not deceptively similar having regard to the nature of the products and nature of display of the marks and the fact that the products are not intended to be used by the general public with casual frequency. However, in spite of such finding, the Division Bench, ultimately directed the respondent to give advertisement that they had nothing to do with the product "Raja" and similarly the plaintiffs were also required to make it clear that they had nothing to do with "Maharaja". We, thus, find that the said decision cannot help the respondents in any way.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Iag Co. Ltd. vs Triveni Glass Ltd. on 11 February, 2004

13. His last contention is regarding making out the prima facie case by the plaintiff for getting interim relief. His submissions arc these. Making out a prima facie case is the condition precedent for getting interim relief. The position has been explained in the decisions given in the cases of - Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Shanti Films Corporation ; Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. ; and S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. . In the instant case in order dated August 18th, 2003 Ansari, J was pleased to record the finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for getting interim relief, and there is nothing before this court to take a contrary view.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - J K Biswas - Full Document

Dhariwal Industries Limited And Ors. vs M.S.S. Food Products on 11 May, 2004

Cadila Health Care Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuti-cals Limited AIR 2001 SC 1952, Mahendra and Mahendra Papers Mill Limited v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, AIR 2002 SC 117 have been relied upon by the respondent where in observations in S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd., AIR 2000 SCW 2172 : AIR 2000 SC 2114 which sought to examine the difference between the two marks "PIKNIK" and "PICNIC" and has emphasized on an dissimilarities over phonetic similarity has been dis-approved as being opposed to National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chandwick & Brothers Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 357, Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142, Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo, AIR 1963 SC 449, Durga Dutt Sharma v. N.P. Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980 and Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoferey Manner & Co., AIR 1970 SC 2062. Phonetically both trade names are similar in a way to cause confusion in the mind of an unwary customer.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdamba Oil Agency vs K.S. Oils Limited And Anr. on 14 August, 2006

4. As far as granting injunction on merit is concerned, Shri Ankur Modi inviting my attention to certain principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. , submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case no injunction could be granted. It is argued by Shri Modi that in the light of requirements under the Trade Mark Act and Copy Right Act, the Court at Morena does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as the appellant does not have any office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Morena and he is not carrying out his business within the territorial jurisdiction of Morena and, therefore, said Court does not have any jurisdiction.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - R Menon - Full Document

Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs Surender Oil And Dal Mills (Refineries) ... on 21 November, 2000

25. Even though other decisions were cited by learned counsel for the appellant, but they are not necessary to refer inasmuch as the Supreme Court has considered all the other decisions relied on by learned counsel for the parties in S.M. Dyechem Ltd.'s case, AIR 2000 SC 2314. Therefore, it will be of no use by repeating the same. Hence, when once the infringement is alleged, it is not necessary that the mark should be deceptively similar and if the mark has the effect of creating confusion in the minds of the consumer, it constitutes sufficient violation of the trade mark or infringement of the registered trade mark.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

T.V. Venugopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises And Anr. on 29 December, 2000

31. Applying the aforesaid principle, it has to be seen whether there was infringement of copyright by the defendant or whether there was substantial reproduction of the copyright of the plaintiff. The trial Court took into consideration that plaintiff has been using the word from 1974 though it was registered in 1999 and held that the plaintiff being a prior user, it is entitled to claim exclusive ownership even though the registration of copyright by defendant is earlier in point. That is not the question to be decided in this regard. Whether there was reproduction of plaintiff's copyright is the prime point and whether there was reproduction of essential features. The Supreme Court in S.M. Dyechem's case (4th cited supra), was considering the provision of Trademark Act, but yet the same principles will apply when the aspect of infringement of trademark or copyright is dealt with. The Supreme Court observed that in determining the essential features, dissimilarities take priority over similarities. In the instant case, according to the plaintiff, essential feature of the copyright is the artistic work of word Eenadu in Telugu script. But the defendant contention is that there are many dissimilarities, essential features, more especially in a case of unrelated goods. It is in evidence that as per Ex.A-43, the word Eenadu was registered as copyright whereas the entire carton with inscription Ashikavari Eenadu Agarbathis with colour scheme was registered in 1997. An over all comparison of the artistic work on the carton and the sole word Eenadu one would come to inescapable conclusion that dissimilarities are in abundance. The carton on its one side the words Ashikavari Eenadu Agarbathis was printed in artistic design, on the reverse side it is printed in English language as "Ashika's Eenadu incense sticks". The most important and crucial document for the purpose of comparison is the artistic work of word Eenadu in telugu script. In Ex.A-43, the work as registered in 1999 vide registration No. A-56447/99, dated 9-7-1999. In the remarks column it is stated "The copy of the work is annexed." But, this vital document has not been filed. This document is the only document which builds the foundation for the entire case of infringement of copyright. Non-filing of this document is fatal to the case of plaintiff. The Onus is on the plaintiff to establish and exhibit the work that was registered. When such document is not brought into evidence, it must be held that the plaintiff failed to discharge its burden. The learned trial Court failed to consider this aspect and proceeded as if there was a registered artistic work under the Copyright Act. The words "two in one" and logo are in yellow colour with red stripes. On the side flaps the word Eenadu was printed in three languages viz., Tamil, Hindi and Malayalam. In the evidence also it was accepted that the vertical lines in the registered copyright of plaintiff Eenadu Telugu script are not there on the carton containing the word Eenadu. Thus, I find that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that the defendant has infringed the copyright of the plaintiff. The finding of the lower Court accordingly set aside.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 73 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
Previous   4 5 6 7 8   9 10 11 12 13 Next