Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd on 9 November, 2001

'We are unable to agree with the aforesaid observations in Dyechem case, 2000 (5) SCC 573. As far as this court is concerned, the decision 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 146 - Full Document

M/S Transmission Corporation Of A.P. ... vs M/S Lanco Kondapalli Power Pvt. Ltd on 15 December, 2005

In S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. [(2000) 5 SCC 573], Jagannadha Rao, J. in a case arising under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 reiterated the same principle stating that even the comparative strength and weaknesses of the parties may be a subject matter of consideration for the purpose of grant of injunction in trade mark matters stating :
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 62 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors on 29 August, 2006

A question as regards the matter relating to grant of injunction has been dealt in S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. [(2000) 5 SCC 573] wherein upon noticing a large number of decisions including Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(1999) 7 SCC 1] as also the subsequent distinction made in respect of the decision of the House of Lords in American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd. [(1975) 1 All ER 853], it was stated :
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 233 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd on 9 November, 2001

'We are unable to agree with the aforesaid observations in Dyechem case, 2000 (5) SCC 573. As far as this court is concerned, the decision 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Etc vs T. Ramachandra & Ors on 30 April, 2008

"19. A finding on "prima facie case" would be a finding of fact. However, while arriving at such a 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 Dhavan that the decision of the House of Lords in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. 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. and S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. but we are not persuaded to delve thereinto."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 151 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1