Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 178 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

Chennai Hotel Saravana Bhavan And Ors. vs Hotel Saravana Bhavan on 30 March, 2005

22. Having regard to these facts, I shall now proceed to examine whether the actions of the defendants-appellants attract infringement of trademark of the plaintiff, as contended by it. The name board of the appellants-defendants shows that it is Chennai Hotel Saravana Bhavan inscribed in big and bold letters while the name of the hotel of the Respondent is Hotel Saravana Bhavan inscribed in small letters, that the photo of Saravan (Lord Subramanya Swamy) is found on the left side of the board and that his devotees photo i.e., Sri Kripananda Varrier, on the right side of the defendants' name board. Further the description of appellants hotel is given as High Class Veg. Restaurant whereas, it is given as Vegetarian A/C. Restaurant as that of the respondent, the name board of the appellant is inscribed in both Tamil and English while it is in English and Telugu in respect of the respondent-plaintiff's hotel. Thus due to the additions, get up and trade-dress of the appellant's hotel, it is quite distinct from that of the respondent-plaintiff's hotel and in view of these dissimilarities, there is no scope of confusion in the mind of customers. The plaintiff has started the hotel business in the name and style of Zen Park and subsequently, the partnership firm started that business registering it in the year 2004 while the defendants-appellants have registered their firm and started its business earlier to the plaintiff. These aspects were lost sight by the court below. That apart, as contended by learned counsel for the defendants-appellants, the genuineness or otherwise of the documents relied on by the plaintiff has to be established during the course of trial. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the Division Bench judgment of this court in Teju Singh's case (2nd read supra) wherein the trade name of the plaintiff was "One day electric Day Cleaners" and that of the defendants "Only 1 day Electric Dry Cleaners", the plaintiff's design was a man carrying a coat while the defendant's design a bird carrying coat, that the defendant had exhibited the picture of a lady on the wrappers while there was no such picture on the plaintiff's wrappers, and their signboards were totally different in their design; and also having regard to the facts of the case in S.M. Dyechem Limited v. Cadbury (India) Limited (3rd read supra) wherein the word PIKNIK, was inscribed with a special script of words in block letters and curve in which those words were inscribed and the cartoons of the boy with a hat appearing in between the words 'K' and 'N', on the plaintiff's mark, while the defendant's mark contained the words simply as PICNIC in a normal script with the inscription of the words 'Cadbury' above the words PICNIC, in the absence of peculiar script, the curve or the boy with a hat was found in the defendant's mark, it must be held that there are more dissimilarities than similarities, on comparison of the name boards of the plaintiff and the defendant and there is no scope for a common man to be swayed away by such highlighted dissimilarities. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the ratio laid down in M/s. Virendra Dresses (4th read supra) wherein the Delhi High Court has granted interim injunction holding that the two trade names of the plaintiffs (Virendra Dresses) and the defendant (Varinder Garments) were not distinctively different but were similar and this similarity was sufficient to give rise to great risk of confusion, does not fit in, in the facts of the case on hand.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - E D Rao - Full Document

Reliance Industries Ltd vs Concord Enviro Systmes Pvt.Ltd on 30 June, 2016

3.10 That the Defendant has not canvassed the proposition that while ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2016 23:59:41 ::: KPPNair 15 nms- 573 of 2015 assessing deceptive similarity, more regard has to be paid to the parts which are not common, while at the same time not disregarding the common parts. It is this manner of comparison employed by the Apex Court in the case of S.M. Dyechem Ltd. vs. Cadbury India Ltd. (supra) which was subsequently disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cadila (supra) relied upon by the Plaintiff.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Smt. Kalawati vs Sh. Netar Singh And Others on 11 March, 2016

39.In S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 573, Jagannadha Rao, J. in a case arising under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 reiterated the same principle stating that even the comparative strength and weaknesses of the parties may be a subject matter of consideration for the purpose of grant of injunction in trade mark matters stating :
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 8 - T S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next