Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros vs Mr.Om Prakash on 24 May, 2023

This is the crucial part of the case. It is here that sufficient care is to be taken in applying the principles. 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 (sic make) 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?
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

S.V.S. Oil Mills vs S.V.S. Agro Refineries P. Ltd. And Anr. on 27 June, 2001

18. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid observations in Dyechem's case (supra). As far as this Court is concerned, the decisions in the last four decades have clearly laid down that what has to be seen in the case of a passing off action is the similarity between the competing marks and to determine whether there is likelihood of deception or causing confusion.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

M/S.Amoha Education (P) Ltd vs Victor on 24 October, 2018

21 To be noted, the aforesaid Parle judgment has subsequently been referred with affirmation by Supreme Court in Cadbury's judgment being S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd., reported in (2000) 5 SCC 573. 22 To put it in a nutshell, the aforesaid comparison was made by me by seeing plaintiff's marks, taking them away from the sweep of my eyes and seeing the alleged offending mark of defendant a little later. Thereafter, I stepped into the shoes of a man of average intelligence with ordinary prudence, imperfect recollection and asked myself the question as to whether such a person will be lulled into the belief that what he is seeing now (i.e., offending material) are what he had seen earlier (i.e., suit TMs). It comes across clearly that the answer to this question is in the affirmative. In other words, I am convinced that it is a clear case of infringement. http://www.judis.nic.in 23 This takes us to the deposition of P.W.1. A perusal of 13 deposition of P.W.1 shows that it is cogent and it is synchronised with pleadings in the plaint.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next