Search Results Page

Search Results

11 - 20 of 27 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Phonepe Private Limited vs Ezy Services & Anr. on 15 April, 2021

Diamond Modular Pvt. Ltd vs Yash Arora And Anr on 9 July, 2024

48. Ld. Counsel for defendant also relied upon judgment in Phonepe Private Ltd. Vs. Ezy Services & Ors. 2021 (86) PTC 437 (Del), wherein Hon'ble High Court held that no exclusivity can be claimed over a descriptive mark or descriptive mark of part even by misspelling it subject to exception. The Hon'ble Court was dealing with trademark PhonePe & BharatPe. In the cited judgment the word pe which is descriptive of pay was considered for digital payments. As stated hereinabove word DIAMOND is not descriptive of Electrical appliances.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mountain Valley Springs India Private ... vs Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited ... on 15 May, 2024

& Anr. v. Clinique Laboratories, LLC & Anr., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2322 on the point of how a consumer of average intelligence with an imperfect recollection would not be deceived between the goods of plaintiff and defendants; on Phonepe Pvt. Ltd. v. EZY Services & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2635 & Vardhman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardhman Properties Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4738 regarding how exclusivity can be claimed only in respect of the entire mark of plaintiff, and not in respect of part thereof.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Kristan Auto on 21 April, 2025

In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel judgment off Delhi High Court in "Great Gatsby Club of India relies upon judgments Vs. Mahesh Prefab Pvt. Ltd." 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2099 2099;; "Phonepe Private Limited Vs. EZY Services & Another" 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2638 2638;; "Eli Lilly and Company and Anr. Vs. Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited" Law Finder Doc ID # 816101;
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wow Momo Foods Private Limited vs Wow Burger & Anr on 12 September, 2025

(Emphasis supplied) 11.3. Applying the aforesaid law to the facts of the present case, in the considered opinion of this Court prima facie it cannot be said that the common law English word 'WOW' has acquired any secondary meaning so as to relate it only to the products and services of the Plaintiff, in the mind of the consumer. The Plaintiff has been in use only since 2008 and the same cannot be treated as 'long period of time' as observed in PhonePe (supra) and Marico (supra). The volume of turnover of Rs. 453 Cr. for the FY 2023-24 is also not a figure which would persuade the Court to hold this mark acquired a secondary meaning. 11.4. It is also pertinent to note that there are other businesses in the market which are using the word 'WOW' as part of their trade mark for their product Signature Not Verified Signed By:HEMANT CS(COMM) 1161/2024 Page 22 of 30 PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:46:34 and services and couple of such instance13 has been placed on record by the Plaintiff itself as part of the compilation dated 30.01.2025. Moreover, a random google search would reveal that there are various other businesses enlisted which are using the word 'WOW' in the food industry itself. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court at this prima facie interim stage it cannot be said that the mark 'WOW' has acquired any secondary meaning in relation to the Plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M P Arora - Full Document
Previous   1 2   3 Next