Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

Medley Laboratories (P) Ltd., Mumbai ... vs Alkem Laboratories Limited on 2 May, 2002

22. Allowing the Appeal and setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below, the Apex Court held that what was to be seen in the case of passing off action is the similarity between the competing marks and to determine whether there is likelihood of deception or causing confusion. Referring to S. M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2114 and overruling it, the Court held that the test that dissimilarity in essential features is more important than similarity is not proper and correct. Referring to several English, American and Indian cases on the point, it was observed that the Court must be careful to make allowance for imperfect recollection and the effect of careless pronunciation and speech on the part of persons seeking to buy under the trade description, as also shop-keepers ministering to personal wants.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 24 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Hydroclave System Corporation And Ors. vs Jain Hydraulic Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 29 August, 2002

It was also observed that the decision on merits in S. M. Dyechem Limited's case does not lay down the correct law. Merely because the term is descriptive and the customers are being specialised one, the same by itself cannot be a justification for refusal of interim relief without considering the other materials and analysing the relevant points narrated above in the matter.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

S.R. Thorat Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Sahyadri Dairy on 11 January, 2002

"18. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid observation in Dyechem case. As far as this Court is concerned, the decisions in the last four decades-off 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 likelihood of deception or causing confusion".
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1