Search Results Page

Search Results

21 - 30 of 54 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014

M/S Kamdhenu Limited vs M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd on 3 November, 2017

& Ors. vs. Coca Cola & Ors.', 1995 (5) SCC 545; 'Lupin Ltd. & Anr. vs. Johnson and Johnson & Anr.', 2015 (61) PTC 1 (BOM)(FB); 'Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs. Videocon Industries Ltd.', 2014 (60) PTC 155 (BOM); 'Mohan Lal, Proprietor of Mourya Industries vs. Sona Paint & Hardware', 2013 (55) PTC 61 (DEL)(FB); 'Cello Household Products vs. Modware India', 2017 SCC Online Bom 394; 'Faber- Castell Aktiengesellschaft vs. Cello Pens Pvt. Ltd.', 2015 SCC Online Bom 6410; 'Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd. vs. Wyeth Ltd.', 2013 (54) PTC 90 (DEL)(FB); 'Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. vs. Gopal Glass Works Ltd.', AIR 2008 SC 2520; 'RSPL Ltd. vs. Mukesh Sharma & Anr.', 232 (2016) DLT 161 (DB); and, 'Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.', 1991 PTC-1.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S P Garg - Full Document

Aegon Life Insurance Company Ltd vs Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd on 19 August, 2019

The argument was not accepted as the Court held that it was not permissible for the Court to even consider the submission of the defendant therein to going behind the validity of the registration at an interlocutory nitin 67/85 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2019 01:35:59 ::: stage on the basis of law as it stood i.e. prior to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Lupin Limited v. Johnson & Johnson37 In view of the same, I do not see how this case assists the Plaintif.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

M/S. Dia Health Foods Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Diabliss Consumer Products Pvt. ... on 6 September, 2018

7.2 The learned Judge has also gone through the email as well as the other documents of the defendants and in paragraph No.35 of his order and he has observed that the documents produced by the defendants does not inspire confidence, that the details regarding the creator of the artistic design, namely Rajinder Singh, is absent and even in the affidavit, Rajinder Singhs father name is not given and moreover, the certificate have been prepared in Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Papers and attested by the very same person, and those stamp papers were consecutive in number. Whereas the documents produced by the plaintiff are from the year 2015 onwards, they are contemporaneous in date and period, and that apart, the documents produced by the plaintiff inspire more confidence than the documents produced by the defendants. The learned Judge has also recorded in his findings that the defendants products bear the very same design of the plaintiff and that the first defendant being the distributor of the plaintiff, he could not claim more rights than his principal and also noted the statement of the plaintiff that the defendants taking advantage of being a distributor for plaintiff, had created their own design and are marketing the products under the name DIABEAT. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration the decision of the Bombay High Court in Suit (L) No.1842 of 2012, dated 23.12.2014, [Lupin Limited Vs. Johnson and Johnson] cited by the defendants and has distinguished the said judgment, by observing in paragraph No.30 of his order that in the case on hand, the distributors namely the defendants who have been appointed by the plaintiff, has usurped the artistic design of the plaintiff and had only interchanged the word, DIABLISS with DIABEAT and had commenced operations and had produced two documents from Rajinder Singh, whose details are not disclosed and as such, this Court can always step in to protect the copyright design of the plaintiff. The learned Judge has also relied on Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the decision rendered by this Court Lalgudi G.Jayaraman Vs.Cleveland Cultural Allliance [MANU/TN/2297/2008] and recorded his finding in paragraph No.42 of his order that no explanation has been given as to why such documents and No Objection Certificates were not obtained immediately by the second defendant, as those documents were dated 12.03.2018 and the alleged artistic work was said to have been created in May 2015 and that the affidavit and the NOC given by Rajinder Singh are also not contemporaneous. The learned Judge, taking into consideration the rival submissions and the materials placed before him, have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for and accordingly allowed the application in O.A.No.480 of 2018 and dismissed the application in A.No.4015 of 2018 filed by the defendants for vacating the interim order granted on 28.04.2018, vide his order dated 11.07.2018.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

La Opala R.G. Ltd vs Cello Plast & Ors on 11 October, 2018

There is another aspect of the matter. It is curious to note that the defendant filed caveat although no cease and desist notice have been issued by the plaintiff. It is expected that the plaintiff must have studied the designs available in the market and found that adoption of the said four designs might lead to litigation. The adoption of the said marks have been consciously made knowing fully well that the said four marks have acquired goodwill and reputation in the market and are prior published designs. The uniqueness and novelty of the design is not a consideration in deciding an action in passing off as in such an action the plaintiff upon establishing distinctiveness of its product and establishing a connection of the product with the plaintiff can thwart an attempt by a rival trader to infringe the said marks, even if the said marks are registered in favour of a rival trader. The prior user of the said mark together with distinctiveness of the product coupled with the trinity tests permit a prior user of the trade mark to jealously protect its mark. Lupin Ltd. (supra) and other cases cited to show that invalidity of the trade mark even if registered can be raised in this proceeding would not be available on the ground of acquiescence. The respondent did not raise any objection after the designs were published in the journal. The respondents did not file any opposition in the trade mark registry. It is not being alleged in the affidavit that such registration was obtained fraudulently.
Calcutta High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - S Sen - Full Document

The Hershey Company vs Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree ... on 9 February, 2024

• Firstly, he emphasized that various IP statutes establish separate regimes and mechanisms. The schemes of the said statutes differ from one another, and it is not permissible for the Court to import the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 31 of 70 By:RAHUL Signing Date:09.02.2024 19:16:40 definition of 'High Court' as provided under Section 2(1)(i) of the Patents Act, 1970 into the 1999 Act. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Lupin v. Johnson and Johnson19 to emphasize this position.
Delhi High Court Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar, Thr. ... vs Arun Shamrao Mardhekar on 3 September, 2024

27. Full Bench of this Court in case of Lupin Ltd. (supra) while dealing with a reference question "Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit?", held that there is no express or implied bar taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to consider the challenge to the validity of the trade mark at the interlocutory stage by way of prima facie findings. The purpose of registered trademark was to prevent others from using an identical trademark. Paragraph no. 34 of the said judgment reads as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar vs Arun Shamrao Mardhekar on 3 September, 2024

27. Full Bench of this Court in case of Lupin Ltd. (supra) while dealing with a reference question "Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit?", held that there is no express or implied bar taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to consider the challenge to the validity of the trade mark at the interlocutory stage by way of prima facie findings. The purpose of registered trademark was to prevent others from using an identical trademark. Paragraph no. 34 of the said judgment reads as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar, Thr. ... vs Arun Shamrao Mardhekar on 3 September, 2024

27. Full Bench of this Court in case of Lupin Ltd. (supra) while dealing with a reference question "Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit?", held that there is no express or implied bar taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to consider the challenge to the validity of the trade mark at the interlocutory stage by way of prima facie findings. The purpose of registered trademark was to prevent others from using an identical trademark. Paragraph no. 34 of the said judgment reads as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3   4 5 6 Next