Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing Marico Limited vs Agro Tech Foods Limited on 1 November, 2010

Shakti Bhog Foods Limited vs Parle Products Private Limited on 23 December, 2014

56. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited (supra) has also held that since as per Section 31 the registration is only a prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, it is open to the Court to go into the question of tentative validity of the registration while considering the application for grant of injunction. Of course, the onus lies on the person who challenges the validity of the mark and he will have to establish that the registration of trade mark in favour of the proprietor thereof is prima facie or tentatively not valid.
Bombay High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014

56. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited (supra) has also held that since as per Section 31 the registration is only a prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, it is open to the Court to go into the question of tentative validity of the registration while considering the application for grant of injunction. Of course, the onus lies on the person who challenges the validity of the mark and he will have to establish that the registration of trade mark in favour of the proprietor thereof is prima facie or tentatively not valid.
Bombay High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 36 - M S Shah - Full Document

Arochem Ratlam Pvt Ltd vs Arom Alchemists Private Limited on 12 August, 2025

The decision of Marico Lomited vs Agro Tech Foods Limited (supra) is of Delhi High Court and what would bind this Court is the Full Bench decision of Lupin Limited vs. Eris Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd (supra). The defence that the registered mark is mis spelling of the routine generic word AROMA which is devoid of distinctiveness cannot be accepted as Shubham 18 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:45:26 ::: IAL-32451-2024.doc the mis spelling of generic word AROMA cannot be "AROME" which differs from AROMA. The mis-spelling of the generic word AROMA would likely be AAROMA or maybe AROMAH or such. A mis-spelling of word is not likely to be considered as invented word if phonetically it is similar to well known word. The Plaintiff's mark 'AROME' is not common dictionary word and is not even pronounced as aroma but has pronouncement different from the pronouncement of the common word Aroma.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Bawasakar Technology (Agro) ... vs Anannya Agro Products And Anr. on 16 March, 2026

A similar view is taken by the Delhi High Court in Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Ltd. 18 where the subject matter was 'LOSORB' in relation to edible oil product. The Court reiterated that a descriptive mark cannot be monopolized unless it has become distinctive to 18 MANU/DE/3131/2010 Pallavi/ Shubham/ Mayur 30/51 ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:32:05 ::: 31 J-COMAO-28-2025 (C).doc a particular product, from the consumer's perspective, by acquisition of secondary meaning to be demonstrated by the material produced by the Plaintiff, as in the given case.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Lupin Limited vs Johnson & Johnson on 6 September, 2012

Agro Tech Foods Limited (supra) that since as per section 31 the registration is only a prima facie evidence of the validity of registration, the courts would be permitted to go into the question of tentative validity of the registration while considering the application for grant of injunction. No doubt that in such a case, the onus would lie on the person who challenges the validity of the trademark and he will have to establish that the registration of trademark in favour of the proprietor thereof is prima facie or tentatively not valid. In my view, if it is held to be impermissible, it would lead to an anomalous situation. Even in the facts some what similar to the facts of the present case, a party would be entitled to get an injunction against the registered proprietor on an action of passing off on the ground that he is a prior user and that the registered proprietor is an imitator. At the same time, the registered proprietor would be entitled to get an injunction against the prior user on the ground that he is a registered proprietor and as long as the mark remains on the register (even wrongly) he is entitled to an injunction against others.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Jagdish G. Kamath And 5 Ors vs Lime And Chilli Hospitality Services on 11 March, 2015

Regional Manager & Anr. v Pawan Kumar Dubey42 and Sanjay Singh 41 (2007) 6 SCC 1 42 (1976) 3 SCC 344 44 of 49 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2015 00:01:24 ::: NMS-2586-2012-S-2549-2012-CAFE MADRAS-F.DOC & Anr. v UP Public Services Commission,43 both cited for a principle on stare decisis.44 Still others are clearly distinguishable: Burberrys v Cording,45 where the word in question was used prior to the plaintiff's adoption of it; Asian Paints Ltd v Home Solutions Retail (India) Ltd.,46 where the rival marks were found to be totally at variance; and Marico Ltd v Agrotech Foods Ltd.,47 where the Delhi High Court examined the validity of the plaintiff's registration to arrive at a conclusion, something that, given the decision of our Full Bench, I am unable to do in this case. There are other authorities, too, cited willy-nilly. It is not, in my view, necessary to deal with these in any detail as they do not affect the outcome. There are some that, to my very great surprise, are cited in support of some argument of 'suppression' and 'fraud'. No such argument was ever advanced at the Bar and it is wholly improper to include this material in the written brief. There is no 'fraud' pleaded anywhere and, given the Defendant's conduct, it hardly lies in the Defendant's mouth to make such an allegation.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - G S Patel - Full Document

International Foodstuffs Co. Llc vs Parle Products Pvt Ltd. And Anr on 11 April, 2016

21. Mr. Tulzapurkar then treats me to two separate compilations of authorities on infringement and passing off to establish that on neither cause of action has the Plaintiff made out a case for grant of an injunction. There can be no quarrel with the propositions that Mr. Tulzapurkar advances. The three cases of significance to which I would make reference are of course the Delhi High Court Division Bench judgments in Marico Limited v Agro Tech Foods Limited,11 Himalaya Drug Company v. SBL Limited, 12 and Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Limited v Parul Food Specialities Private Limited. 13 The last of these is particularly interesting because there the Respondent in the Appeal had adopted a mark featuring Lord Krishna in relation to ghee and other dairy products. The Single Judge modified an ad-interim order. The Division Bench held that in this case even a deity can be uniquely associated with a particular product and that would not by itself make the product distinctive if it was otherwise descriptive.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - G S Patel - Full Document

Garware Polyster Limited vs 3M Company And Anr on 12 July, 2016

17. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Marico Limited v Agro Tech Foods Limited is instructive.32 The mark in question was LOW ABSORB, one that the respondents used in conjunction with their trade mark SUN DROP. The Division Bench held that, at best, the mark was a combination of two popular English words; was descriptive of the nature of the product; and that this adoption ran a risk, viz., that others in the field would also be entitled to use the same, or similar, phrase. The acquisition of a 'secondary meaning' is not lightly to be assumed. For such a claim to succeed, there must be evidence of uninterrupted use of considerable longevity without a competitor attempting to use it too.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - G S Patel - Full Document
1   2 Next