Search Results Page

Search Results

11 - 20 of 21 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Nestle India Limited vs Mood Hospitality Private Limited on 10 February, 2010

M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk ... on 26 July, 2018

(iv) Learned counsel went to the extent of targeting the finding that Trademark “NANDHINI” adopted by the respondent is a well- known inasmuch as such finding was without any supporting material. In this behalf, he attempted to show that there was no 7 (2015) 221 DLT 359 8 (2001) 5 SCC 73 9 (1997) 4 SCC 201 Civil Appeal Nos. 2937-2942 of 2018 with Ors. Page 25 of 47 finding by the IPAB that the mark “NANDHINI” of the respondent is a well-known mark. He argued that the concept of well-known trademark enshrined under Section 11(2) of the Act which gives wider net of protection to the trademarks in respect of different set of goods is a completely different than that of the Section 11(1). It is submitted that for arriving at the conclusion of well-known trademark there are certain defined parameters on which the trademark is required to be tested, as held by Delhi High Court in Nestle India Ltd. v. Mood Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.10
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 48 - A K Sikri - Full Document

V.Lakshminarayanasamy vs Siva Bhaskaren

In Nestle India Limited's case (referred herein supra), the Delhi High Court was deciding an infringement action and in that context, compared the claims under Section 29 of the Act and came to a conclusion that in the facts of the case, the mark was not used as a trade mark and further its use was likely to be taken as being used a trade mark and further held the marks, viewed as a whole were neither similar nor identical.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Lakshminarayanasamy vs Siva Bhaskaren

In Nestle India Limited's case (referred herein supra), the Delhi High Court was deciding an infringement action and in that context, compared the claims under Section 29 of the Act and came to a conclusion that in the facts of the case, the mark was not used as a trade mark and further its use was likely to be taken as being used a trade mark and further held the marks, viewed as a whole were neither similar nor identical.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Lakshminarayanasamy vs Siva Bhaskaren

In Nestle India Limited's case (referred herein supra), the Delhi High Court was deciding an infringement action and in that context, compared the claims under Section 29 of the Act and came to a conclusion that in the facts of the case, the mark was not used as a trade mark and further its use was likely to be taken as being used a trade mark and further held the marks, viewed as a whole were neither similar nor identical.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   1 2   3 Next