Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 361 (3.43 seconds)
Documents citing N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. vs Kent Ro Systems Limited & Ors. on 30 May, 2023

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this Signature Not Verified date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(COMM) 596/2022 and connected matter Page 36 of 60 Signing Date:31.05.2023 15:13:18 the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being contested. In these premises, we cannot conclude that a prima facie case has not been disclosed by the respondent-plaintiffs.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Mr. Boman R. Irani vs The Official Liquidator Of M/S Ideal ... on 27 November, 2025

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being
Karnataka High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Classic Legends Private Limited vs The Official Liquidator on 27 November, 2025

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being
Karnataka High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Boman R.Irani vs The Official Liquidator Of M/S. Ideal ... on 27 November, 2025

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being
Karnataka High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Boman R Irani vs The Official Liquidator on 27 November, 2025

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being
Karnataka High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next