Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 97 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. And Others on 10 October, 1995

H.M. Saraiya Ors. vs Ajanta India Ltd. And Anr. on 7 March, 2006

"Even if the aforesaid judgment has considered the law at the ad-interim stage, but independently also I am of the opinion that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bajaj Electricals Limited, Bombay v. Metals & Allied Products, Bombay and Anr. , the judgment of another Division Bench in the case of Kamal Trading Co. Bombay and Ors. v. Gillettee U.K. Limited Middle Sex, England, 1988 The Patents and Trade Marks Cases, Volume-VIII page 1 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. and Ors. , I am of the view that the law as far as this Court is concerned in relation to the cognate goods is well settled that the action of a passing off is maintainable not only in respect of same goods but also in respect of cognet goods. The aforesaid judgements take a view thp.c in cases of the goods which are related to each other though may not the same goods but the goods is covered by the same class or covered in the same field, a passing off action is maintainable by the plaintiff to protect hi mark and an injunction can be granted. What is a related field and what is the cognate goods is of course a question of fact to be decided on facts of each case."
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mahendra And Mahendra Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. on 10 May, 2002

"Judging the case in hand on touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned decided cases, it is clear that the plaintiff has been using the word "Mahindra" and "Mahindra and Mahindra" in its companies/business concerns for a long span of time extending over five decades. The name has acquired a distinctiveness and a secondary meaning in the business or trade circles. People have come to associate the name "Mahindra" with a certain standard of goods and services. Any attempt by another person to use the name in business and trade circles is likely to and in probability will create an impression of a connection with the plaintiffs' group of companies. Such user may also effect the plaintiff prejudicially in its business and trading activities. Undoubtedly, the question whether the plaintiffs' claim of 'passing-off action' against the defendant will be accepted or not has to be decided by the Court after evidence is led in the suit. Even, so far the limited purpose of considering the prayer for interlocutory injunction which is intended for maintenance of status quo, the trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and irreparable prejudice in its favour which calls for passing an order of interim injunction restraining the defendant-company which is yet to commence its business from utilising the name of 'Mahendra' or 'Mahendra and Mahendra' for the purpose of its trade and business. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted for confirming the order of injunction passed by the learned single Judge."
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

Omega S.A. vs Avanti Kopp Electricals Ltd. And Anr. on 9 July, 2003

The Supreme Court also noticed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bata India Ltd. v. Pyare Lal & Co., and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kirloskar Diesel Recon (P) Ltd. v Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd., and held that where the name has acquired distinctiveness and people have come to associate the name with a certain standard of goods and services, any attempt by another person to use the name in business and trade circle is likely to and in probability will create an impression of a connection with the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company would be entitled to injunction as the user may effect the plaintiff prejudicially in its business and trading activities.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R J Babu - Full Document

Munira Virani And Anr vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks And 2 Ors on 2 January, 2023

77. Dr. Saraf distinguished the decisions relied upon by the Plaintiff in contending that for honest and concurrent user, damages may not be granted, however, injunction should follow. This in the case of Winthrop Products Inc V. Eupharma Laboratories (supra) and Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. & Ors.31. He has submitted that these decisions were on the facts which arose in those cases and which are entirely different from the facts in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Abdul Rasul Nurallah Virjee And ... vs Regal Footwear on 2 January, 2023

77. Dr. Saraf distinguished the decisions relied upon by the Plaintiff in contending that for honest and concurrent user, damages may not be granted, however, injunction should follow. This in the case of Winthrop Products Inc V. Eupharma Laboratories (supra) and Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. & Ors.31. He has submitted that these decisions were on the facts which arose in those cases and which are entirely different from the facts in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Abdul Rasul Nurallah Virjee And ... vs Regal Footwear on 2 January, 2023

77. Dr. Saraf distinguished the decisions relied upon by the Plaintiff in contending that for honest and concurrent user, damages may not be granted, however, injunction should follow. This in the case of Winthrop Products Inc V. Eupharma Laboratories (supra) and Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. & Ors.31. He has submitted that these decisions were on the facts which arose in those cases and which are entirely different from the facts in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next