Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani & Anr. on 13 October, 2022

Sammaan Finserv Limited vs Svamaan Financial Services Private ... on 18 February, 2025

"44. The defendants have also relied upon the judgment in Vasundhra Jewellers v Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani, wherein the plaintiff claimed exclusivity over the word VASUNDHRA despite having no registration for the word mark VASUNDHRA. The Court held in favour of the defendant, whose mark was visually different from the plaintiff's marks. In the present case, the plaintiff has valid registrations for the word mark 'SVAMAAN'. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment cannot come to the rescue of the defendants in the present case."
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Samvara Buildtech Private Limited & ... on 29 March, 2023

16. The learned Single Judge observed that while considering the claim of exclusivity to the word 'VASUNDHRA', the claim made by the Plaintiff before the Registrar of Trade Marks, though may not act as an estoppel, but would be a relevant consideration and since the Plaintiff had sought to distinguish other cited marks 'VASUNDHRA' by contending that the mark has to be considered as a whole, Plaintiff cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Pertinent it is to mention that against the said order declining the relief of injunction, Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Division Bench and the prima facie view of the learned Single Judge was upheld and the Division Bench in Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3370, held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. vs Svamaan Financial Services Private ... on 18 February, 2025

"44. The defendants have also relied upon the judgment in Vasundhra Jewellers v Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani, wherein the plaintiff claimed exclusivity over the word VASUNDHRA despite having no registration for the word mark VASUNDHRA. The Court held in favour of the defendant, whose mark was visually different from the plaintiff's marks. In the present case, the plaintiff has valid registrations for the word mark 'SVAMAAN'. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment cannot come to the rescue of the defendants in the present case."
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

A.O. Smith Corporation And Anr. vs Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 22 March, 2024

(emphasis added) 14.5 What is being stressed for the purposes of our determination is that a comparative analysis of both these marks would show that 'SMITH', which is a word of uncommon usage in India generally, is clearly the dominant part of the marks. Defendants' contention that 'AO' is the dominant part of the mark does not find merit with this Court. 'AO' is largely incongruous with no definitive meaning or recall, while 'SMITH' is much more specific, has a definite resonance and familiarity, being obviously a name used by persons as well as a suffix for various workers such as blacksmith, ironsmith, goldsmith, etc. Defendants' explanation that 'SMITH' was the name of the son of the proprietor, has not been supported by any evidence or documents and therefore, cannot be accounted for. Even, the manner in which 'SMITH' is depicted in plaintiffs' mark and defendants' mark, has an equal play alongside 'AO' and 'STAR', respectively and is certainly not minor or subservient to the other part of the mark. It has been held by this Court in Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3370, that examining the dominant part of the trademark for the sake of comparison is for the purpose of determining whether marks are deceptively similar when viewed as a whole.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaquar And Company Private Limited vs Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited on 1 April, 2024

31. Mr. Lall reiterates that, having contended, in its reply to the FER raised by the Trade Mark Registry which set up the pre-existing registered trade mark ARTIC as a confusingly similar mark to the 40 227(2016) DLT 681 (DB) 41 AIR 2022 Del 188 42 113 F.3d 373, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1641 (2d Cir. 1997) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR CS(COMM) 670/2023 Page 40 of 82 Signing Date:01.04.2024 18:55:48 proposed mark ARTIZE, that the marks ARTIZE and ARTIC were not similar, the plaintiff cannot be heard to submit that the marks ARTIZE and ARTISTRY are similar. This, he submits, would amount to approbate and reprobate, which is not permissible, for which purpose he relies on para 40 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani43.
Delhi High Court Cites 98 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next