Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing Stiefel Laboratories, Inc & Anr vs Ajanta Pharma Ltd. on 1 July, 2014

M/S Deelux Cables India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Devendra Cables India Pvt Ltd on 15 February, 2019

bl U;kf;d n`"VkUr ls lacaf/kr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ 1999 ls VªsMekdZ dk mi;ksx dj jgk Fkk] ftl ij vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkns'k fd;k tkuk mfpr ekuk x;k gSA L.T. Foods Ltd. Anr. Vs. Sunstar Overseas Ltd. and Anr. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd U;k;ky; ds le{k feF;k nLrkost is'k djus ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh dks lkE; ds vuqrks"k ds ;ksX; ugha ekuk vkSj mldk vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k x;k] tcfd izkFkhZ dk vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k x;k FkkA Stiefel Laboratories vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "The Defendant has itself applied for and obtained registration of its mark, which it claims to have adopted by telescoping letters from generic drugs. Further the court has to be very cautious in dealing with medicinal products. If rival deceptively similar marks are permitted to stay in the marker in respect of pharmaceutical products, there is likelihood of grave injury to the public. Where greater public interest is involved, the commercial rights of parties are to become subservient. If there is any likelihood of confusion in the two competing marks that have been applied to pharmaceutical products, the deceptively similar mark that had entered the market later in time has to go. Prima facie the marks of the Defendant had entered the market later in point of time than the mark of the Plaintiffs. The marks are deceptively similar."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 9 January, 2020

Inter alia the appellant submits that he is not claiming any right in BEV and that marks are not to be dissected for the purpose of comparison which is against the Anti-Dissection Rule and that marks are required to be compared as a whole with reliance having been placed on the verdict of this Court in Stiefel Laboratoties Vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. 211 (2014) Dlt 296 wherein it has been submitted that reference is being made to paragraphs 23 and 23.15 of the verdict of the Division Bench of this Court in United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ors. 2012 (50) PTC 433 (Del) DB which read to the effect that:
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Phonepe Private Limited vs Ezy Services & Anr. on 15 April, 2021

2016 SCC OnLine Del 5420 Signature Not Verified IA 8084/2019 in CS(COMM) 292/2019 Page 45 of 82 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:23.04.2021 09:16:46 DAZS" of the respondent General Mills Marketing Inc. ("GMM" in short), when used in the context of identical goods, i.e. ice-cream. This Court, in an incisively reasoned opinion, deftly counter balanced the "anti dissection" principle with the "dominant mark" test while dealing with infringement actions. The general principle in the case of composite trademarks - which also emanates from Section 17 of the Act - it was observed, was that the mark was required to be considered as a whole, as, in the absence of separate registration of any individual part of the mark, the proprietor could not claim exclusivity over any such individual part. This "anti-dissection" rule, it was held, required Courts to "consider the composite marks in their entirety as an indivisible whole rather than truncating or dissecting them into its (sic their) component parts and make comparison with the corresponding parts of original mark to determine the likelihood of confusion". It was observed that this was founded on the basic reality that an ordinary prospective buyer would be impressed by the composite mark as a whole and not by its component parts. The following passage from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, as earlier cited by this Court in Stiefel Laborataries v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd55, and which represents a classic exposition of the law in this regard, was relied upon:
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 10 - C H Shankar - Full Document

V Guard Industries Ltd vs Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals ... on 12 May, 2022

14. Plaintiff is admittedly the prior and continuous user since the year 2013, whereas Defendant has claimed user since the year 2020. Reliance is placed on Stifel Laboratories, Inc and Another v. Ajanta Pharma Limited, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3405, wherein the Court has held that for grant of an ad interim injunction in a dispute relating to rival trademarks, Plaintiff has to firstly prima facie establish priority in use to the use of the Defendant and secondly, commercial continuous user and thirdly deceptive similarity between the rival marks.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 6 - J Singh - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. vs Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. on 26 August, 2022

30. Certain judgments have been relied upon to contend that in cases where phonetic, visual or structural similarity is made out, the injunction must follow and the prior user always has a superior right. It is further contended that delay cannot be a ground to refuse injunction. [See: Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories: AIR 1965 SC 980; S. Syed Mohideen v. Sulochana Bai: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1084; Stiefel Laboratories v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd.: 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3405; Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors.: 2004 SCC OnLine SC 106; and, M/s. Hindustan Pencils Private Limited v. M/s. India Stationary Products Co. & Anr: 1989 SCC OnLine Del 34.]
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Subway Ip Llc vs Infinity Food & Ors. on 12 January, 2023

20. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer to a recent decision of this Court reported as Stiefel Laborataries v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd.16 The Court whilst expounding upon the principle of 13 (2015) 61 PTC 231 14 994 F.2d 1359, 1362 (9th Cir. 1993) 15 174 F. Supp. 2d 718, 725 (M.D. Tenn. 2001) 16 211 (2014) DLT 296 CS(COMM) 843/2022 Page 12 of 26 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:15.01.2023 15:16:13 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000269 ‗anti-dissection' cited with approval the views of the eminent author on the subject comprised in his authoritative treatise- McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. It was observed:
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next