Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

Chennai Hotel Saravana Bhavan And Ors. vs Hotel Saravana Bhavan on 30 March, 2005

22. Having regard to these facts, I shall now proceed to examine whether the actions of the defendants-appellants attract infringement of trademark of the plaintiff, as contended by it. The name board of the appellants-defendants shows that it is Chennai Hotel Saravana Bhavan inscribed in big and bold letters while the name of the hotel of the Respondent is Hotel Saravana Bhavan inscribed in small letters, that the photo of Saravan (Lord Subramanya Swamy) is found on the left side of the board and that his devotees photo i.e., Sri Kripananda Varrier, on the right side of the defendants' name board. Further the description of appellants hotel is given as High Class Veg. Restaurant whereas, it is given as Vegetarian A/C. Restaurant as that of the respondent, the name board of the appellant is inscribed in both Tamil and English while it is in English and Telugu in respect of the respondent-plaintiff's hotel. Thus due to the additions, get up and trade-dress of the appellant's hotel, it is quite distinct from that of the respondent-plaintiff's hotel and in view of these dissimilarities, there is no scope of confusion in the mind of customers. The plaintiff has started the hotel business in the name and style of Zen Park and subsequently, the partnership firm started that business registering it in the year 2004 while the defendants-appellants have registered their firm and started its business earlier to the plaintiff. These aspects were lost sight by the court below. That apart, as contended by learned counsel for the defendants-appellants, the genuineness or otherwise of the documents relied on by the plaintiff has to be established during the course of trial. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the Division Bench judgment of this court in Teju Singh's case (2nd read supra) wherein the trade name of the plaintiff was "One day electric Day Cleaners" and that of the defendants "Only 1 day Electric Dry Cleaners", the plaintiff's design was a man carrying a coat while the defendant's design a bird carrying coat, that the defendant had exhibited the picture of a lady on the wrappers while there was no such picture on the plaintiff's wrappers, and their signboards were totally different in their design; and also having regard to the facts of the case in S.M. Dyechem Limited v. Cadbury (India) Limited (3rd read supra) wherein the word PIKNIK, was inscribed with a special script of words in block letters and curve in which those words were inscribed and the cartoons of the boy with a hat appearing in between the words 'K' and 'N', on the plaintiff's mark, while the defendant's mark contained the words simply as PICNIC in a normal script with the inscription of the words 'Cadbury' above the words PICNIC, in the absence of peculiar script, the curve or the boy with a hat was found in the defendant's mark, it must be held that there are more dissimilarities than similarities, on comparison of the name boards of the plaintiff and the defendant and there is no scope for a common man to be swayed away by such highlighted dissimilarities. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the ratio laid down in M/s. Virendra Dresses (4th read supra) wherein the Delhi High Court has granted interim injunction holding that the two trade names of the plaintiffs (Virendra Dresses) and the defendant (Varinder Garments) were not distinctively different but were similar and this similarity was sufficient to give rise to great risk of confusion, does not fit in, in the facts of the case on hand.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - E D Rao - Full Document

Tips Industries Ltd vs Wynk Ltd. And Anr on 23 April, 2019

"21. Our attention was drawn to a recent judgment of this Court in S.M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Cadbury (India) Ltd. 2000ECR1(SC) where in a passing off action, the plaintiff, which was carrying on the business under the mark of "Piknik", filed a suit for injunction against the defendant which was using the mark of "Picnic" for some other chocolates sold by it. On the allegation that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar, the trial court had issued an injunction which was reversed by the High Court. On appeal, the decision of the High Court was affirmed. One of the questions, which this Court considered, was that for grant of temporary injunction, should the Court go by the ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 14:53:42 ::: Nitin 97 / 104 principle of prima facie case, apart from balance of convenience, or comparative strength of the case of either parties or by finding out if the plaintiff has raised a "tribal issue". While considering various decisions on the point in issue, this Court rightly concluded at page 591 as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 6 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Tips Industries Ltd vs Wynk Ltd. And Anr on 23 April, 2019

"21. Our attention was drawn to a recent judgment of this Court in S.M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Cadbury (India) Ltd. 2000ECR1(SC) where in a passing off action, the plaintiff, which was carrying on the business under the mark of "Piknik", filed a suit for injunction against the defendant which was using the mark of "Picnic" for some other chocolates sold by it. On the allegation that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar, the trial court had issued an injunction which was reversed by the High Court. On appeal, the decision of the High Court was affirmed. One of the questions, which this Court considered, was that for grant of temporary injunction, should the Court go by the ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 14:53:34 ::: Nitin 97 / 104 principle of prima facie case, apart from balance of convenience, or comparative strength of the case of either parties or by finding out if the plaintiff has raised a "tribal issue". While considering various decisions on the point in issue, this Court rightly concluded at page 591 as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

M/S Girnar Food & Beverages vs M/S Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. on 19 March, 2001

(b) In so far as McCain International Ltd. Vs country Fair Foods Ltd. & Anr. 1981 RPC 69 case is concerned, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has submitted that the principle involved in that judgment was that the user by the plaintiff in that case was for too short a period of about 18 months and such period was not sufficient for acquisition of a secondary meaning.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next