Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing Ihhr Hospitality Pvt Ltd vs Bestech India Pvt Ltd on 31 May, 2011

Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited & Anr vs Micky Metals Limited on 24 August, 2021

In IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Delhi High Court in the facts of that case did not find any material on record to establish that the mark of the plaintiff had acquired such a high brand equity in India that its use by persons other than the plaintiff in respect of totally unrelated goods/services will dilute the reputation which the brand of the plaintiff enjoys in India.
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vintage Distillers Limited vs Ramesh Chand Parekh on 16 November, 2022

In Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench held that merely because the mark is common to the register of trademarks it may not be common to trade. For an argument predicated on common to trade to succeed, evidence of extensive use of the mark in question needs to be shown. Merely relying on a few third-party labels is not enough to prove that the mark is common to trade. Applying the observations in the above judgments to the present set of facts the documents placed on record by the Defendant are trademark registration certificates or applications or some results from random internet search. There are no documents showing actual extensive user by any third party. It is, even otherwise, trite that the mere entry of the mark in the Register of Trade Marks is not evidence of its actual use for a mark may be registered by an entity, but may not have been put to actual use. In any case, this argument does not inure to the benefit of the Defendant, for the reason that the mark ' ' is purely arbitrary to the products in question in the present case and in law entitled to a high degree of protection.
Delhi High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Controller General Of Patents vs * Additional

5. The Amicus Curiae is of the opinion that the name of the deity, being in the public domain, cannot be monopolized and the picture of the deity and the title 'Sabarimala of Women' cannot be granted trademark protection. This opinion seems to stem from the fact that the Goddess is worshipped as the "supreme mother and creator of all living beings". The learned Amicus Curiae also draws a parallel in referring to the various denominations within Christianity and a situation wherein one of the denominations claims right over the picture of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ believed to have been sent WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 6 - to redeem the entire humanity, including non-Christians, the other denominations within Christianity cannot claim such exclusivity to the picture or name. Hence, the present registration, equated with the above situation, it is contended, cannot be granted. The learned Amicus Curiae relies on Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (48) PTC 235 (Del)], IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (50) PTC 535 Del)], both by the High Court of Delhi, and Amritpal Singh v. Lal Babu Priyadarshi and Anr. [2005 (30) PTC 94 IPAB] by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Mankind Pharma Ltd vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Ors on 22 January, 2015

Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr. 2010(42) PTC 772 (Del) Schering I.A.No.12676/2013 in CS(OS) 2047/2014 Page 6 of 23 Corporation & Ors. Vs. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. as also another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported as in FAO(OS) 352/2011 IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. decided on 09.5.2012. Submission being that admittedly, the word KIND has not been registered with the plaintiff; being a generic word and being publici juris; in no manner can it be said that the product of the plaintiff is deceptively similar to the product of the defendant. On all counts the application is liable to be dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - I Kaur - Full Document

Dindayal Industries Ltd vs Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan. & Anr on 22 December, 2025

13.26 It was further contended that the word "DINDAYAL" is a common name in India and, in law no exclusivity can be claimed over names of common usage or over expressions having religious or cultural associations. Reliance was placed on Om Logistics Ltd. (supra), Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India18, Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. Pernod Ricard S.A. France19, and IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd20.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 Next