Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 455 (4.43 seconds)
Documents citing N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. vs Kent Ro Systems Limited & Ors. on 30 May, 2023

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this Signature Not Verified date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(COMM) 596/2022 and connected matter Page 36 of 60 Signing Date:31.05.2023 15:13:18 the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being contested. In these premises, we cannot conclude that a prima facie case has not been disclosed by the respondent-plaintiffs.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

M/S Turning Point vs Turning Point Institute Private ... on 11 August, 2017

The said decision of Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., 1995 SCC OnLine Del 310 : AIR 1995 Del 300] was further affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I.A. No. 16232/2015 in CS (OS) No. 2368/2015 Page 42 of 63 31.2. The applicability of the said principle can be seen as to which proprietor has generated the goodwill by way of use of the mark/name in the business. The use of the mark/carrying on business under the name confers the rights in favour of the person and generates goodwill in the market. Accordingly, the latter user of the mark/name or in the business cannot misrepresent his business as that of business of the prior right holder. That is the reason why essentially the prior user is considered to be superior than that of any other rights. Consequently, the examination of rights in common law which are based on goodwill, misrepresentation and damage are independent to that of registered rights. The mere fact that both prior user and subsequent user are registered proprietors are irrelevant for the purposes of examining who generated the goodwill first in the market and whether the latter user is causing misrepresentation in the course of trade and damaging the goodwill and reputation of the prior right holder/former user. That is the additional reasoning that the statutory rights must pave the way for common law rights of passing off. (emphasis supplied)
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Classic Legends Private Limited vs Tide Water Oil. Co. (India) Ltd on 27 November, 2025

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being
Karnataka High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Classic Legends Private Limited vs The Oficial Liquidator Of M/S Ideal Jawa ... on 27 November, 2025

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being
Karnataka High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Boman R. Irani vs The Official Liquidator Of M/S. Ideal ... on 27 November, 2025

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being
Karnataka High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Classic Legends Private Limited vs Tide Water Oil Co (India) Ltd on 27 November, 2025

At the present stage, the argument in favour of the appellant-defendant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet [Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624] and Whirlpool [N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714] , as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful party predated the date of application for registration of the competing party. The question to examine, then, would be whether prior user would have to be anterior to the date of application or prior to the user by the appellant-defendant. In other words, the question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being
Karnataka High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next