Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. And Others on 10 October, 1995

Dorabjee & Company Private Limited Thr. ... vs Jehangir Nariman Dorabjee And Ors on 4 December, 2018

In this case, the reliance was placed on the observations made by this Court in the case of Kirloskar Diesel Recon Private Limited Vs. Kirloskar Proprietary Limited, AIR 1996 Bombay 149 , wherein it was held that, "With the passage of time, law on the requirement of a common field of activity in a passing off action has radically changed. There is no requirement of common field of activity as a necessary foundation of a claim in passing off."
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Chagan Bhai Patel on 9 January, 2009

7. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a number of judgments related to names viz Kirloskar Diesel Recon P Ltd v Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd AIR 1996 Bombay 149, Mahendra and Mehendra Paper Mills Ltd v Mahindra and Mahindra Limited 2002(2) SCC 147, M/s K.G. Khosla Compressors Limited v Khosla Extraktions Limited AIR 1986, Delhi 181 as well as of Division Bench of this court dated 8th February, 2008 in FAO(OS) 601/2006 wherein on the plea of the plaintiff herein only, the opposite party therein was restrained from using the trademark /name LNT/ELENTE or other deceptively similar mark. However, CS(OS) 1600/2007 Page 3 of 5 need is not felt to deal with in detail with the said judgments as the plaintiff is found to be entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 36 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

The Timken Company vs Timken Services Private Ltd. on 30 May, 2013

4.3. Without prejudice, the delay cannot be a bar to permanent injunction as held by this Court in Hindustan Pencils Private Limited v. India Stationery Products Co., AIR 1990 Del 19 followed in Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Limited, AIR 1996 Bombay 149; Revlon Inc. v. Sarita Manufacturing Co., 1997 (17) PTC 394; Aktiebolaget Volvo of Sweden v. Volvo Steels Ltd. of Gujarat (India), 1998 (18) PTC 156; Ansul Tobacco Industries v. Shiva Tobacco Company, 2007 (34) PTC 392; and Hamdard National Foundation v. Abdul Jalil, 2008 (38) PTC 109.
Delhi High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 12 - J R Midha - Full Document

Goenka Institute Of Education & ... vs Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr. on 29 May, 2009

In the case of Kirloskar Diesal Recon Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. and others, AIR 1996 Bombay 149 also, it was held that the use of surname was not saved by Section 34 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for an artificial person like incorporated Company. It was also held that the mark „Kirloskar‟ used by the plaintiffs had acquired a secondary meaning and had become a household word and as such Section 34 of the Act could not come to the rescue of the defendants."
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 49 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Exide Industries Limited vs Exide Corporation, U.S.A. & Ors. on 5 September, 2012

In the case of Kirloskar Diesal Recon Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. and others, AIR 1996 Bombay 149 also, it was held that the use of surname was not saved by Section 34 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for an artificial person like incorporated Company. It was also held that the mark „Kirloskar‟ used by the plaintiffs had acquired a secondary meaning and had become a household word and as such Section 34 of the Act could not come to the rescue of the defendants."
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Shri Virinder Chawla vs Ms. Chawla Band on 30 January, 2010

In Goenka Institute of Education & Research (supra), our Hon'ble High Court referred to decisions in Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, 2002 (2) SCC 147, Montari Overseas Ltd. vs. Montari Industries, 1996 PTC (16) 142 (Del), Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. vs. Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2004 (29) PTC 435 (Del), Bajaj Electrical Limited, Bombay vs. Metals & Allied Products, Bombay and Anr., AIR 1988 Bombay 167 and Kirloskar Diesal Recon Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. and Others, AIR 1996 Bombay 149 and held as :
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rev. C.Chrispus vs Rev. M.Robinson on 26 April, 2016

He had relied on the decisions reported in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple (2003 (8) SCC 752), Mani Nariman Daruwala @ Bharucha (Deceased) through LRs (1991 (3) SCC 141), Shamrao Ganpat Chintamani v. Kakasaheb Lakshman Gorde (2008 AIHC 1798),Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal O.P.(C).No.1266 of 2016 8 Corporation of Delhi (1993 (3) SCC 161), BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (AIR 2002 SC 350), Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Sing (1992 (1) SCC 719) Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd (AIR 1996 Bombay
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document

Bheru Singh vs Parbat Singh on 21 February, 2025

35. Plaintiff has relied upon certain authorities i.e. Dailmer Benz Aktiegesellschaft vs Hybo Hindustan,1993 IV AD Delhi 833, Cadbury India Limited vs Neeraj Food Products 142(2007) DLT 724, ITC Limited vs Philip Morris Products & Ors 166(2010) DLT 177, Mahendra & mahendra Paper Mills Ltd vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2002) 2SCC 147, Bloom Berg Finance vs Praful Saklecha and Ors. 207(2014) DLT 35, Tata Sons Ltd vs Manoj Dodia 2011 (46) PTC 246 (Del), Honda Motors Ltd. vs Charanjit Singh 101 (2002) DLT 359, Kirloskr Diesel Recon Ltd. vs Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. AIR 1996 Bombay 149 for reputation and goodwill.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next