Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing Insecticides (India) Limited vs Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd on 9 July, 2018

Hamdard National Foundation (India) & ... vs Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited on 6 January, 2022

Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) v. Hans Raj, 1973 SCC OnLine Del 162; Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) v. Prem General Stores [Order dt. 05th August, 1988 in Suit No. 1144/1988]; Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) v. Aggarwal Ayurvedic Sansthan and Ors. [Order dt. 12th December, 1989 in Suit No. 1477/1989]; Hamdard National Foundation v. Hussain Dalal [Order dt. 13th August, 2014 in CS(OS) 1225/2013]; Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73; Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90; Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744; Novartis AG v. Crest Pharma (P) Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4390; Suresh Kumar Jain v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 12; Raj Kumar Prasad v. Abbott Healthcare (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7708; Mex Switchgears (P) Ltd. v. Max Switchgears (P) Ltd., (2014) 8 HCC (Del) 347; Allied Blenders & Distillers (P) Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor (P) Ltd., (2014) 7 HCC (Del) 483; and Insecticides (India) Limited v. Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9748 to submit that the plaintiffs have established a case for interim protection.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - A Menon - Full Document

Zenith Dance Institute Pvt. Ltd. vs Zenith Dancing And Music on 18 July, 2023

24. Insofar as the petitioner's reply dated 16 January 2016, to the FER dated 18 July 2015, apropos the plaintiff's application for registration of the ZENITH ARTS mark was concerned, Ms. Menon submits that the stand adopted in the said reply was in very general terms, and did not advert to any particular mark, including the particular cited mark of the defendant. She submits that, in such circumstances, the said response cannot disentitle her from pleading, in the present case, deceptive similarity of the impugned marks of the defendant, with the marks of the plaintiff. She cites, in this context, paras 14(O) to (W) and para 15, respectively, of the judgments of this Court in Insecticides (India) Ltd v. Parijat Industries (India) Ltd9 and H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB v. H.M. Megabrands Pvt Ltd10 .
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Max Healthcare Institute Limited vs Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr on 25 September, 2024

F. The mere fact that others, also providing hospital/healthcare services may be using the word MAX is no ground for depriving the plaintiff of injunction against the defendant if otherwise a case therefor is made out. I have in Sunil Mittal v. Darzi On Call(2017) 242 DLT 62, Insecticides (India) Ltd. v. Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 252 DLT 129, H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB v. HM Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9369 and Purshotam Keshwani v. Nishant Mitrasen Mahimtura 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7392 held that the owner of a registered trade mark is not expected to indulge in the business of litigation of suing each and every person adopting the same/similar mark, irrespective of impact thereof on the business of the plaintiff. It is in the discretion of a plaintiff, whom to sue and whom not to sue and merely because a plaintiff in a suit for infringement of trade mark has not sued another, is no ground to defeat the suit against the infringer against whom the plaintiff has chosen to act.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document
1