Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing F. Hoffman La Roche And Company Limited vs The Sanitex Chemical Industries ... on 4 October, 1962

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Swisskem Healthcare And Anr on 2 July, 2019

11. The Court is not concerned with hypothetical possibilities but with the ordinary practical business probabilities having regard to the circumstances of the case. F. Hoffmann Roche v. Sanitex Chemical Industries (1965) 67 BOMLR 729 . In the present case, all things considered, (visually and phonetically). We do not see any real tangible danger of "confusion in the mind of the public which will lead to confusion in the goods". (Pianotist case (1906) 23 RPC 774."
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Richardson Vicks Ind. And Anr. vs Vikas Pharmaceuticals on 21 August, 1989

(25) In F.Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. (supra) their Lordships of Supreme Court were considering the question whether the word Dropovit a vitamin preparation, was deceptively similar to the word Protovit, and. thus offended the provision of Section 12(1) of the Trade & Merchandise Act, 1958, and further whether the word Dropovit was an invented or a deceptive word for the purposes of Section 9(1) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Johann A. Wulfing vs Chemical Industrial & Pharmaceutical ... on 6 December, 1983

11. The Court is not concerned with hypothetical possibilities but with the ordinary practical business probabilities having regard to the circumstances of the case. F. Hoffmann ROche v. Sanitex Chemical Industries, (1965) 67 Bom LR 729. In the present case, all things considered, (visually and phonetically). We do not see any real tangible danger of "confusion in the mind of the public which will lead to confusion in the goods".
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1