Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.82 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

M/S Praba'S V Care Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd vs / on 29 July, 2021

C.S.No.217 of 2019 and A.No.9084 of 2019 The registered trade mark of the plaintiff is strikingly different from the mark of the defendant. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s S.M.Dyechem Limited case cited supra, the identification of the essential feature is partly on the Courts own judgment. This Court on search of common or similar essential features among the above two trademarks unable to find any.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Ampm Fashions Private Limited vs Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm ... on 9 November, 2021

(vi) The distinction between the two marks is evident, even on mere ocular examination. The impugned mark is in lowercase and written in italics, with the word "designs" appended to it, as a suffix. The plaintiff's mark is in upper case i.e., capital letters and does not bear the word "designs", which is an integral part of the defendants' mark. Additionally, the defendants' mark, now, expressly bears the names of its owners i.e., Anil Mehta and Poonam Mehta. [See S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Shambhubhai Prahladbhai Thakor vs Laxmiben D/O Dahyabhai Prahladbhai ... on 11 February, 2021

"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."
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A C Rao - Full Document

M/S Praba'S V Care Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd vs / on 29 July, 2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.217 of 2019 and A.No.9084 of 2019 The registered trade mark of the plaintiff is strikingly different from the mark of the defendant. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s S.M.Dyechem Limited case cited supra, the identification of the essential feature is partly on the Courts own judgment. This Court on search of common or similar essential features among the above two trademarks unable to find any.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Lakshmiben D/O Prahladbhai And W/O ... vs Sambhubhai Prahaladbhai Thakor on 11 February, 2021

"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."
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A C Rao - Full Document
1