Smt. Jamilun-Nisha vs Ishhaq Ahmad Alias Raju And Anr. on 5 September, 2003
In the case of N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation and Anr., 1996 (5) SCC 714, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.39 seconds)Poonam Detergent Industries vs Kanpur Trading Company Ltd. on 9 September, 2003
In the case of N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation and Anr., 1996 (5) Supreme Court Cases 714, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
Anugya Gupta And Another vs I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. Through Its ... on 23 September, 2025
This proposition has also been discussed in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn: 1995 SCC OnLine Del 310: AIR 1995 Del 300 wherein the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recognised that the registration is not an indefeasible right and the same is subject to rights of prior user.
Pradeep Jain And Another vs Shri Swadesh Kumar Jain And Others on 29 April, 2011
In N.R.Dongre versus Whirlpool Corporation 1996 PTC (16) SC, it has been held that an appellate Court hearing appeal against an order should not assess the material and reaching a different conclusion if the conclusion reached by the trial court reasonably possible.
Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private ... vs Jubilant Generics Ltd. And 3 Others on 15 October, 2025
17. We are conscious of the law that this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion in the matter of grant of temporary injunction by the High Court and the trial court and substitute its own discretion therefor except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the order of the a courts under scrutiny ignores the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. The appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion (see Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn.).
Lucknow Development Authority vs Ajay Prakash & Ors. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 7 August, 2020
In the case of 'N.R. Dongre and others vs. Whirlpool Corporation and another', (1996) 5 SCC 714, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the correctness of an order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a suit filed by the respondents to restrain defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising or in any way using the trade mark 'Whirlpool' or any other trade mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the trademark 'Whirlpool' in respect of their goods. The claim of the plaintiffs-respondents was based on prior user of the trade mark 'Whirlpool'. After considering the rival pleadings and material placed before the Court, the learned Single Judge granted temporary injunction. The Division Bench confirmed that the said order and dismissed the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court. It was held:-
R.K. Products vs Kothari Products Ltd. on 15 April, 2004
In N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation and Anr., (1996) 5 SCC 714, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a matter like the present one has observed (vide para 8) : "An infringement action is available where there is violation of specific property right acquired under and recognized by the statute. In a passing-off action, however, the plaintiff's right is independent of such a statutory right to a trade mark and is against the conduct of the defendant which leads to or is intended or calculated to lead to deception. Passing off is said to be a species of unfair trade competition or of actionable unfair trading by which one person, through deception, attempts to obtain an economic benefit of the reputation which another has established for himself in a particular trade or business. The action is regarded as an action for deceit. The tort of passing-off involves a misrepresentation made by a trader to his prospective customers calculated to injure, as a reasonably foreseeable consequence, the business or goodwill of another which actually or probably, causes damages to the business or goods of the other trader............"
Neelam Shukla And 3 Others vs Balika Shukla And 2 Others on 17 November, 2023
In Skyline Education Institute (India) (P) Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, the three-Judge Bench considered a somewhat similar question in the context of the refusal of the trial court and the High Court to pass an order of temporary injunction, referred to the judgments in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. and observed: (S.L. Vaswani case, SCC p. 153, para 22)
"22. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate, court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity.>
1