Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

Narenra Kumar vs Shyam Sunder & Anr on 3 December, 2012

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited Vs. S.L. Vaswani & Anr. (supra) while relying on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. Vs. Zamindara Engg. Co., reported in (1969) 2 SC 727 and in the case of N.R.Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corpn., reported in (1996) 5 SCC 714 as well as on the judgment rendered in the case of Satyam Infoway Ltd. Vs. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd., reported in (2004) 6 SCC 145. held in para 22 as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Peretti Van Melle Benelux B.V. vs Ramkrishna Food Products And Ors. on 6 March, 2012

35. Aforesaid documents confirm that the adoption and use of the trademark by the plaintiff along with goodwill and reputation of the trademark MENTOS coupled with Indian registration since 1983 as well as its international user. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Milment Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., 2004 (28) PTC 585 (Supreme Court), has extended the proposition in Whirlpool (supra) by stating that the prior use in the world will prevail over and above the use of the mark in India when it comes to reputation of well known trade marks and the anomalous situation that parallel question of identical trademarks in identical goods cannot be allowed to run in India vis-à-vis other countries of the world. In the present case, not only the plaintiff qualifies the aforesaid propositions but the product of the plaintiff is available and is being sold under the trademark MENTOS extensively in India as well. The Apex court observed as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Esha Ekta Appartments Chs Ltd.& Ors vs Mun.Corp.Of Mumbai & Anr on 29 February, 2012

In Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani (2010) 2 SCC 142, the 3-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 (supra), N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. (1996) 5 SCC 714 and observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Las Vegas Sands Corp vs Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure Pvt. ... on 2 July, 2012

Appeal titled N.R. Dongre and Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corpn. and Anr., (1996) 5 SCC 714 was taken to Supreme Court wherein it was held thus: "on the above concurrent findings, the weight of equity at this stage is in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. It has also to be borne in mind that a mark in the form of a word which is not a derivative of the product, points to the source of the product. The mark/name 'WHIRLPOOL' is associated for long, much prior to the defendants' application in 1986 with the Whirlpool Corporation - plaintiff No. 1. In view of the prior user of the mark by plaintiff No. 1 and its trans-border reputation extending to India, the trade mark 'WHIRLPOOL' gives an indication of the origin of the goods as emanating from or relating to the Whirlpool Corporation - plaintiff No. 1. The High Court has recorded its satisfaction that use of the 'WHIRLPOOL' mark by the defendants indicates prima facie an intention to pass- off defendants' washing machines as those of plaintiffs' or at least the likelihood of the buyers being confused or misled into that belief." Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by the High Court with regard to the trans-border reputation.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A K Pathak - Full Document

Sh.Rajesh Gupta vs Sh.Jay Prakash Singhal on 27 February, 2012

09. As rightly submitted on behalf of ld. counsel for respondents, this court while deciding the present appeal as an appellate court should not substitute its own opinion unless the discretion exercised by the trial court is arbitrary, capricious or perverse as also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of 1996 (7) JT S.C. 555 titled as N.R.Dongre & Others Vs. Whirlpool Corporation and Another''.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manju Sharma vs Sh Tarun Goyal on 11 January, 2012

9. It is well settled law that while deciding the appeal as an Appellate Court, should not substitute its own opinion unless the discretion exercised by the Trial Court is arbitrary, capricious or perverse as also held by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgments reported in 1996 (7) JT SC 555 titled as "N.R. Dongre & Others Vs. Whirlpool Corporation and Another" as well as JT 2001 (10) SC 285 titled as "Laxmikant V. Patel Vs. Chetanbhat Shah & Another". I find that the Ld. Trial Court rightly MCA­12/07 Page 6/7 exercised it's discretion to grant the injunction, as such I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next