Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 248 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Laxmikant V.Patel vs Chetanbhat Shah & Anr on 4 December, 2001

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Wockhardt Limited And Anr on 15 March, 2017

39. Mr Tulzapurkar relies on Laxmikant V Patel v Chetanbhai Shah & Anr,34 but this does not, I think, serve his cause very well. The law does not permit, the Supreme Court said, anyone to do business by deluding customers or clients into mistaking his goods are those of another or vice versa. Fraud is immaterial, and so is the defendant's state of mind. That only tells us that the misrepresentation may be unintentional. From this, the factum of misrepresentation cannot simply be presumed in every single case; and we must distinguish between likelihood of misrepresentation and likelihood of damage. Actual damage need not be proved; its likelihood is enough. When the Supreme Court said that the goods are in effect telling a falsehood about themselves, something calculated to mislead, what is it those goods are saying? Only that those goods are so designed or put into sale to convince consumers the goods originated from a source other than the one from which they did.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - G S Patel - Full Document

Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd vs Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private ... on 13 January, 2026

20.Mr. Parikh then placed reliance on the decisions in Mangalam Organics Ltd., Foodworld v. Foodworld Hospitality 15, Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc.16, S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai 17, and Laxmikant Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah18 to submit that it is well settled that an action for passing off must satisfy the classical trinity, namely the existence of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage or likelihood of damage. Mr. Parikh further submitted that goodwill and reputation are pure questions of fact and must, therefore, be established by clear, cogent, and reliable evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brilliant Public School Society vs Brilliant Public School Sitamarhi 4 ... on 23 March, 2020

In suits based on passing off action, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant V. Patel Vs. Chetanbhat Shah & Anr. 2002 (24) PTC 1 (SC), it is usual, rather essential, to seek injunction temporarily or aid-interim and the principles for grant of such injunction are the same as in case of any other action against injury complained of. In such cases, fraud is not a necessary element of the right of action and even the absence of intention to deceive could not be pressed in service as defence though proof of fraudulent intention may materially assist a plaintiff in establishing probability of deception. Actual damage is not required to be established and likelihood of damage is sufficient. Holding that the same principle which applied to the trademark is applicable to trade name, Their Lordship observed as below:-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhavesh Suresh Kataria vs Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. on 8 December, 2025

B. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, to establish a case of passing off, a Plaintiff must show goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage. In the present case, the Plaintiff has, prima facie, shown long, continuous, and extensive use of the mark "KATARIA" since 2004. The Plaintiff has also relied upon cogent material showing substantial turnover and promotional expenditure, which establishes the Plaintiff's goodwill. The rival marks and names are identical and used for the same services, making confusion inevitable and rendering the Defendant's misrepresentation implicit. It cannot be lost sight of that in the insurance industry, trust and reputation. Thus, any confusion would potentially result in damage or, a strong likelihood of damage.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next