Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.61 seconds)
Documents citing Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited & ... on 5 October, 2010

Fi vs . Narender Jain Etc. on 27 April, 2013

Likewise in Hindustan Uniliever Limited Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr (supra), it has been observed that, "The complaint came to be lodged after a considerable delay of nearly two years from the date of taking the sample--the best before date of the sample of food items was six months from the date of manufacturing, therefore, on the date when the complaint came to be lodged, the shelf life of the food article in question had expired--the applicant was deprived of a valuable right under sub­section (2) of Section 13 to get the sample of food article analyze by the Director, Central Food Laboratory.".
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reckitt Benckiser Health Care (India) ... vs Emami Ltd & & Ors on 16 July, 2015

Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as various High Courts including our High Court we will have to examine as to whether the comparison which was made by the defendant No.1 between its own product "Moov" and the plaintiff's product which is manufactured and marketed under the trademark under the trademark of "ZANDU BALM"/ "ZANDU" is a fair and truthful comparison or not. The defendant in its affidavit in paragraph 16 thereof depicted a comparative chart regarding the ingredients used in the defendant's product and the ingredients used in the plaintiff's product to justify that such comparison was fair as it was made on truthful basis. Paragraph 16 of the said affidavit is thus, set out hereunder.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - J Bhattacharya - Full Document
1