Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. vs Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd. on 19 January, 2011

Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Godrej Skyline Developers Private ... on 11 September, 2019

(iii) It is further stated that the plaintiffs‟ and defendants‟ marks are completely different. On a bare comparison, there is no scope or likelihood of confusion. It is also stated that the defendants‟ trade mark GODREJ CENTRAL PARK has the pre-fix GODREJ which is the dominant and essential feature of the defendants‟ trade mark. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. vs. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd., ILR (2011) Delhi 317.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - J Nath - Full Document

Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd vs Sunil Kumar Saluja on 28 January, 2022

In Bhole Baba (supra) case, injunction order was sought against selling of Ghee using trademark „Krishna‟. The word Krishna was being used by defendant with the words „Parul‟s Lord‟ preceding with word „Krishna‟. It was observed that word „Krishna‟ was used by several manufacturer in the identical goods and therefore plaintiff claim of distinctiveness and monopoly was prima facie not accurate.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Man Mohan Sharma vs Manjit Singh on 22 December, 2016

For Subsequent orders see CM-16925-CII-2016 10 of 64 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2016 03:40:56 ::: FAO No.4739 of 2016(O&M) -11- And, yet another aspect which has been lost sight of by trial court is; that apparently the adoption and usage of the trade mark ‶ MOHAN'S ″by the defendant was/is bona fide, for it forms part of his name i.e. Man Mohan Sharma, and Section 35 of the Act prohibits the registered proprietor to cause any interference in the bona fide use of by a person of his own name. To conclude, he submits that injunction granted by the trial court is contrary to the settled principles of law, for none of the three factor, that are mandatory for granting an injunction, existed in the matter in hand. He relied upon the following decision in support of his submissions: Trinethra Super Retail Private Limited, Hyderabad represented by Company Secretary Vinod K Saraf v. Mee Trinetra Trading Private Limited, Hyderabad, Represented by Director Pilli Guru Prasad Anand, 2011(4) ALT 692: 2012(8) RCR (Civil) 2887; Goenka Institute of Education and Research v. Anjani Kumar Goenka and another, 2009(40) PTC 393: 2010(8) RCR (Civil) 1718; Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd., 2011(45) PTC 217; Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani and another, 2010 AIR (SC) 3221; Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors., 2015(4) RCR (Civil) 860; Asian Paints Limited v. Home Solutions Retail (India), 2007(35) PTC 697; Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited, 2010(43)PTC39(Del); Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. v. Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar and others, 2009(40) PTC 428; and Wander Ltd. And another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (Sup) SCC 727.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - A Palli - Full Document

M/S Suman International & Anr. vs Mahendra Gulwani & Anr. on 14 December, 2023

24. It is, thus, contended that the shape being generic, cannot be monopolised by the respondents. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited v. S.L. Vaswani & Anr : (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 142 and the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Limited v. Parul Food Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR FAO (COMM) 199/2021 Page 10 of 31 Signing Date:15.12.2023 15:39:24 Specialities (P) Ltd.: ILR (2011) DELHI 317, in support of his arguments that the party using a mark, which is common to trade, bears the risk of it being used by others.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd vs Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private ... on 13 January, 2026

In support of his contention that the names of Hindu Gods and Deities are not capable of monopolisation, he placed reliance on the decisions in Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh 22, Freudenberg Gala Household Products Pvt. Ltd. v. GEBI Products 23, Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd. 24, S.K. Sachdeva v. Shri Educare Ltd.25, OM Logistics Ltd. v. Mahendra Pandey26, and Shree Ganesh Besan Mill v. Ganesh Grain 27.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unknown vs Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd on 8 April, 2013

21. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court, in BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDSUTRIES LTD. Vs. PARUL FOOD SPECIALITIES (P) LTD., (2011 (45) PTC 217 (DEL.), wherein, it had been held that the mark 'Krishna' is descriptive of the Hindu God and his association with milk products. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of monopoly over the mark 'Krishna' would not be correct.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.N.A.Thiagarajan And Sons vs Venkateshwara Camphor Works (2001(1) ... on 19 December, 2012

53 In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the defendant/non applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. Vs Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd. (2011(45) PTC 217 (Del.) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to lay down that the word "Krishna" is a common name, i.e. name of a god/deity that is Lord "Krishna" and is being used by several manufacturers for similar goods both prior to year 1993 and thereafter. The mark "Krishna" is descriptive of the Hindu God and his association with milk products. The plaintiff's claim to monopoly over the mark "Krishna" therefore, is not correct. It was held that sales alone does not transcend in attaining of secondary meaning/distinctiveness of the mark, which in present context is a common name/deity's name for the plaintiff to monopolize its use to the exclusion of others.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document
1