Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 743 (4.16 seconds)
Documents citing Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001

Bio-Chem Pharmaceutical Industries vs Astron Pharmaceuticals And Assistant ... on 15 January, 2003

Learned counsel for the respondent wanted to cite some out-dated judgments much prior to the judgment in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra)). I do not think that these judgments could be of any help to him, as would be evident hereinafter. In that case the question which came to be considered related to phonetic similarity between the two competing words 'Falcitab' and 'Falcigo'.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 15 February, 2023

14. The Supreme Court in the decision of Cadila Healthcare Ltd V. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra), considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration while considering the question of deceptive similarity. It is to be noted that the said case was relating to action for passing off on the basis of 28 wp 1517.2022 .doc unregistered trade mark, however, the said principles will apply to the present case, as inter-alia it is to be decided whether the trade mark of the Petitioner is of such a nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion with respect to the said trade mark of the Respondent No.4. The relevant portion of paragraph 35 of the said decision reads as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M J Jamdar - Full Document

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 15 February, 2023

14. The Supreme Court in the decision of Cadila Healthcare Ltd V. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra), considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration while considering the question of deceptive similarity. It is to be noted that the said case was relating to action for passing off on the basis of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2023 01:04:32 ::: wp 1517.2022 .doc unregistered trade mark, however, the said principles will apply to the present case, as inter-alia it is to be decided whether the trade mark of the Petitioner is of such a nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion with respect to the said trade mark of the Respondent No.4. The relevant portion of paragraph 35 of the said decision reads as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M J Jamdar - Full Document

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

22. I do not accept the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant as I feel that it is more dangerous if the pharmaceuticals products bearing the same mark is used for different purposes for the same ailment or even otherwise. I also do not accept the contention of the defendant's counsel that there would be no confusion if the products contain different ingredients/different salt. In my opinion, it is more dangerous and harmful in the trade if the same trade mark is used for different ailments. The Apex court has already dealt with this proposition of law in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, (2001) 5 SCC 73 and held as under :
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited on 28 March, 2026

25. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (supra) holds that in pharmaceutical cases, a stricter approach has to be applied and the court has to ensure that there is no likelihood of confusion between two drugs and the mere fact that the products may be Schedule-H Drugs, or may be differently priced, does not mitigate the possibility or likelihood of confusion. Public health is of paramount importance and there could be no leniency whatsoever with respect to subject matters concerning public health and any likelihood of confusion between two drugs has to be avoided.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Procter And Gamble Health Limited vs Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt Ltd on 17 March, 2026

14. Mr. Kirpekar would seek to make an artificial distinction by stating that the Defendants' products are nutraceutical products, whereas the Plaintiffs' products are medicinal preparation, and therefore there is no likelihood of confusion. On the contrary, the submission would assist the case of the Plaintiffs, as the consumption of one medicine for the other, would lead to disastrous consequences. It is no answer to say that the Plaintiffs' drugs are Schedule H drugs, as the Apex Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) has held that it is not uncommon that, SQ Pathan 12/24 ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:48:23 ::: IA-L-39102-2025.doc because of lack of competence or otherwise, mistakes can arise even in the case of prescription drugs and their dispensation by pharmacists. The pleaded case of the Defendants is that the respective marks operate in separate commercial channels without any specification as to the different commercial channels and indeed there can be none as the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendants' products would be generally sold through pharmacy shops. The Defendants have also applied for registration of their product in Class 5 which renders unsustainable the artificial distinction sought to be created by Mr. Kirpekar.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next