Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.79 seconds)
Documents citing M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

Vimal Dairy Limited vs Gujarat Tea Depot Company on 1 March, 2021

There is force in the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the dictum in Kellogg Company's case (supra) to the extent it relied upon Schweppes Ld.'s case (supra) would not hold good in view of the subsequent development of law in M/s. S.M. Dyechem Ltd.'s case (supra) and the review thereof in Cadila Health Care Ltd.'s case (supra), the Apex Court while relying upon the observations in Schweppes Ld.'s case (supra) observed that if the customer does not distinguish the characteristics of the two packings, then he is not a customer whose view can properly be regarded by the Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 2 - A Joshi - Full Document

Vimal Dairy Limited vs Gujarat Tea Depot Company on 1 March, 2021

There is force in the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the dictum in Kellogg Company's case (supra) to the extent it relied upon Schweppes Ld.'s case (supra) would not hold good in view of the subsequent development of law in M/s. S.M. Dyechem Ltd.'s case (supra) and the review thereof in Cadila Health Care Ltd.'s case (supra), the Apex Court while relying upon the observations in Schweppes Ld.'s case (supra) observed that if the customer does not distinguish the characteristics of the two packings, then he is not a customer whose view can properly be regarded by the Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - A Joshi - Full Document

Kkr India Financial Services Limited vs Axis Bank Limited on 5 March, 2020

19. A finding on 'prima facie case' would be a finding of fact. However, while arriving at such finding of fact, the court not only must arrive at a conclusion that a case for trial has been made out but also other factors requisite for grant of injunction exist. There may be a debate as has been sought to be raised by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan that the decision of House of Lords in American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] 1 All ER 504 would have no application in a case of this nature as was opined by this Court in Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(1999) 7 SCC 1] and S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. [(2000) 5 SCC 573], but we are not persuaded to delve thereinto."
Gujarat High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 6 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

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
1   2 Next