Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Laverana Gmbh And Co.Kg & Anr. on 28 January, 2016

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:43 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:42 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:41 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:44 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Century 21 Real Estate Llc vs Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd And Anr on 6 March, 2026

H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Page 37 of 43 Vaibhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:43:45 ::: 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pepsi Co Inc. vs Sri Syed Ghaziddin on 26 October, 2022

The High Court of Delhi in MAC Personal Care Private Limited vs. Laverna GMBH and Company KG & Another (21 supra) at para Nos.18 to 21, held that factors to measure transborder reputation were registrations in multiple jurisdictions referred to by international magazines and volume of sales; in Playboy Enterprises Inc. vs. Bharat Malik and Another29, the Delhi High Court held that transborder reputation could exist even in places where the goods were not being served and in Cadbury UK Limited & Another vs. Lotto India Corporation Limited30 held that transborder reputation could exist even in a place where there was no trade of the goods. 28 1998 SCC OnLine Del 829 29 (2001) 91 DLT 321 30 2014 (57) PTC 422 (Delhi) 78 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CCCA Nos.20 of 2021 & Batch Transborder reputation can be established through advertisements on the internet and social media. An action for passing off is to protect good will attached to the name of the company and not to protect the trade mark.
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pepsico Inc., vs M/S Magfast Beverages on 26 October, 2022

The High Court of Delhi in MAC Personal Care Private Limited vs. Laverna GMBH and Company KG & Another (21 supra) at para Nos.18 to 21, held that factors to measure transborder reputation were registrations in multiple jurisdictions referred to by international magazines and volume of sales; in Playboy Enterprises Inc. vs. Bharat Malik and Another29, the Delhi High Court held that transborder reputation could exist even in places where the goods were not being served and in Cadbury UK Limited & Another vs. Lotto India Corporation Limited30 held that transborder reputation could exist even in a place where there was no trade of the goods. 28 1998 SCC OnLine Del 829 29 (2001) 91 DLT 321 30 2014 (57) PTC 422 (Delhi) 78 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CCCA Nos.20 of 2021 & Batch Transborder reputation can be established through advertisements on the internet and social media. An action for passing off is to protect good will attached to the name of the company and not to protect the trade mark.
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Burger King Company Llc vs Ranjan Gupta & Ors on 6 March, 2023

31. In my view, the defendants have failed to place any material in support of their submission that the trademark „BURGER KING‟ is either generic or common to trade. It cannot be denied that the plaintiff has used the trademark „BURGER KING‟ since 1954 and holds registrations for the said mark in over 122 countries including India. The Division Bench of this Court in M.A.C Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Laverana GMBH and Co. K.G. & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 530, observed that the registrations of the plaintiff in multiple jurisdictions create an even stronger presumption that the plaintiff‟s trademark has reputation in the market. It was further observed that if a trademark is registered in favour of the plaintiff in a jurisdiction abroad, the said fact suggests that the mark of the plaintiff is distinctive and hence, the same is capable of distinguishing the plaintiff‟s trademark from those of other businesses.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A Bansal - Full Document

Burger King Company Llc vs Virendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. on 29 November, 2023

31. In my view, the defendants have failed to place any material in support of their submission that the trademark 'BURGER KING' is either generic or common to trade. It cannot be denied that the plaintiff has used the trademark 'BURGER KING' since 1954 and holds registrations for the said mark in over 122 countries including India. The Division Bench of this Court in M.A.C Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Laverana GMBH and Co. K.G. & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 530, observed that the registrations of the plaintiff in multiple jurisdictions create an even stronger presumption that the plaintiff's trademark has reputation in the market. It was further observed that if a trademark is registered in favour of the plaintiff in a jurisdiction abroad, the said fact suggests that the mark of the plaintiff is distinctive and hence, the same is capable of distinguishing the plaintiff's trademark from those of other businesses.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Burger King Company Llc vs Ranjan Gupta & Ors on 29 November, 2023

31. In my view, the defendants have failed to place any material in support of their submission that the trademark 'BURGER KING' is either generic or common to trade. It cannot be denied that the plaintiff has used the trademark 'BURGER KING' since 1954 and holds registrations for the said mark in over 122 countries including India. The Division Bench of this Court in M.A.C Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Laverana GMBH and Co. K.G. & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 530, observed that the registrations of the plaintiff in multiple jurisdictions create an even stronger presumption that the plaintiff's trademark has reputation in the market. It was further observed that if a trademark is registered in favour of the plaintiff in a jurisdiction abroad, the said fact suggests that the mark of the plaintiff is distinctive and hence, the same is capable of distinguishing the plaintiff's trademark from those of other businesses.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next