Search Results Page

Search Results

71 - 80 of 455 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

Smt. Nanjamma vs Smt. Rajamma on 4 August, 2023

The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (1996) 5 SCC 714 in the case of N R DONGRE AND OTHERS vs WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 8 wherein also the Apex Court observed that interference in the appeal by the Appellate Court in respect of the orders and temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court is limited and such interference is permissible only if the order is perverse or capricious. Merely because the appellate court might take a different view is not a ground to interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Trial Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Rainforest Cafe, Inc. vs Rainforest Cafe And Ors. on 12 April, 2001

3. Mr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants, contended that transborder reputation cannot be relied upon without regular business activity in the country. Since the plaintiff had not commenced any operations in India an action in passing off was not possible. Deception had not been pleaded or made out, since the plaintiff was not the registered holder of a Trade Mark an infringement action was also not possible. The decision in the WHIRLPOOL case was inapplicable for these reasons. The plaintiff had no 'presence' in India - no restaurant, no goodwill, no advertisement, no user of the name and no activity. The plaintiff must prima facie prove that some person was mislead into patronising the defendants mistakenly believing it to be the plaintiff branch, or franchise etc.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - V Sen - Full Document

Corning, Incorporated And Ors. vs Raj Kumar Garg And Ors. on 9 September, 2003

In Whirlpool's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in para 14 of the judgment further held that in this age of electronic media, international press and exchange of global information, the knowledge and awareness of a particular mark is not restricted to the people of the country where such goods are manufactured or are available but the knowledge and awareness reaches the shores of other countries, also where the product has not been launched even. The cognizance of the same is taken by the people through advertisements in newspapers, magazines, television, video films, cinema etc. It was also held that the dissemination of knowledge of a "trade mark" in respect of a product through advertisement in media amounts to the use of the "trade mark" whether or not the advertisement is coupled with the actual existence of the product in the market. Therefore, the question as to whether the "two ribs" blanks were actually being produced by the plaintiffs or not or had been earlier marketed in India or not would be of no significance if the traders and opticians who are the purchasers of these blanks in India are fully aware of the importance and relevance of the ribs on such blanks/lenses.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - R C Chopra - Full Document

Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. And Anr. vs Orchid Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals ... on 16 May, 2006

58. Considering the averments made by the parties, it is difficult to infer at this stage that the adoption of the trademark` Meromer' by the defendant is with the intention to pass off his product as that of plaintiffs. The defendant has spent considerable amount in setting up the plant. The plaintiff was not the first to adopt and use the prefix ' MERO ' as trademark MEROCEL was registered in favor of M/s Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. No. 2110 East Galiraith Raod, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A which fact can not be denied by the plaintiffs. There are other companies marketing the same drug, Meropenem, with the trade names having prefix `Mero'. Perusal of the plaint also reveals that the plaintiffs did not make any averment regarding trans border reputation. No material as has been relied on or produced by the plaintiffs to show its trans border reputation which were noticed by the Apex Court in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation .
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 71 - A Kumar - Full Document

Ahmed Oomerbhoy And Anr. vs Shri Gautam Tank And Ors. on 20 December, 2007

28. This fact that the defendants had got their trade mark `Super Postman' registered subject to the undertaking as detailed hereinabove was not disclosed. Consequent to such an undertaking and conditional registration, the defendants can not claim any rights, prima facie, on the basis of registration of their trade mark `Super Postman'. Section 28(3) and 30 (1) (d) deal with the rights of the registered proprietors of similar trade marks and bar action of infringement against each other as their reading show that the proprietor of registered trade mark can not file an infringement action against a proprietor of an identical or similar trade mark. However, Section 27 (2) deals with passing off action and the rights for passing off are not affected by Section 28(3) and Section 30(1) (d). This position can not be disputed in view of N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation and Ors. holding:
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 9 - A Kumar - Full Document
Previous   4 5 6 7 8   9 10 11 12 13 Next