Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (3.12 seconds)
Documents citing Phonepe Private Limited vs Ezy Services & Anr. on 15 April, 2021

Arochem Ratlam Pvt Ltd vs Arom Alchemists Private Limited on 12 August, 2025

30. The test of infringement is matter of first impression and in so far as the Plaintiff's mark is concerned, the same is word mark "AROME" and apart from this word there are no other material and it is this word "AROME" which constitutes the single, prominent, essential memorable feature of the Plaintiff's mark. There is no question of dissecting the Defendant's mark as the Plaintiff's entire mark has been subsumed in the Defendant's mark. The Defendant having copied phonetically and deceptively similar mark "AROM" though by adding the words "ALCHEMIST" infringes the Plaintiff's registered trade mark. There is no quarrel with the principles laid down in Phonepe Private Limited vs EZY Services and Another (supra) and when the principles are applied to the present case, it is evident that the dominant part or the essential feature of the Plaintiff's registered trademark i.e. "AROME" has been copied by the Defendants.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Peps Industries Private Limited vs Kurlon Limited on 7 October, 2022

26. The reliance placed by KURLON on the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Phonepe Private Limited v. EZY Services and Another (supra), is misplaced. The learned Single Judge in the facts of the said case had not agreed with the contention that the defendant was estopped from urging that the term 'Pe' was generic for the reason that the defendant, in the said case, had applied for registration of the mark 'BharatPe' and not merely of the suffix 'Pe'. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff's mark, in the said case, was 'PhonePe'. The learned Single Judge, therefore, in the facts of the said case held that the defendant was not precluded from raising the objection that the suffix 'Pe' is generic and descriptive in nature and, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim monopoly over the said term.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Aap Ki Pasand & Anr vs Himalayan Leaf Pvt Ltd on 30 November, 2022

In Phonepe Private Limited (supra), it was reiterated that the requirement of establishing a reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents along with the Written Statement shall not to be applicable if it is averred that the documents were found subsequently and were not in power, possession, control or custody of the defendant when the Written Statement was filed, and the rigour of establishing a reasonable cause for non-disclosure will not arise in a case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the Written Statement. This Court allowed the documents that were post the filing of the Written Statement and were in public domain to be taken on record. However, this Court refused to take on record the documents for which no assertion was made that they were not in the power, possession, control or custody of the defendant/applicant at the time of the filing of the Written Statement.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt. ... vs Snj Distillers Private Limited & Anr. on 19 April, 2023

71. Much reliance was placed by the Defendants on the judgment of this Court in PhonePe Private Limited (supra), wherein the Court held that barring the common 'Pe' suffix, it cannot be said that the mark 'PhonePe' of the Plaintiff and 'BharatPe' of the Defendant are confusingly or deceptively similar and in fact, the words are not even phonetically similar. As rightly pointed out by the Plaintiff in the said case, the entire discussion centred around the rival marks being generic or descriptive and the rights of the Plaintiff to claim monopoly, while in the present case, Plaintiff's mark has not only been held arbitrary but also declared as a well-known mark and the discussion with respect to the rights of the Plaintiff to claim monopoly, is wholly irrelevant.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Zydus Wellness Products Limited vs Cipla Health Ltd & Anr. on 3 July, 2023

34. Without prejudice, Mr. Sibal submits that, in the case of a descriptive word mark, the onus is on the plaintiff alleging passing off Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 21 of 140 SINGH NEGI Signing Date:03.07.2023 15:35:51 to prove acquisition of distinctiveness, by the asserted marks, by dint of use. That, he submits, is an aspect which is required to be relegated to trial, and on which the Court cannot conceivably return a finding at the Order XXXIX stage. He relies, for this purpose, on para 70 of the decision of this Bench in Phonepe Pvt Ltd v. Ezy Services26 and para- 30 of the decision of a coordinate Single Bench of this Court in Red Bull AG v. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd27 , as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.R. Kapoor v. Mirconix India28.
Delhi High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 2 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Phonepe Private Limited vs Digipe Fintech Private Limited on 22 August, 2023

In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of PhonePe v. Ezy Services, 2021 (86) PTC 437. Drawing attention to paragraph 8(i) of the very same judgment, it is pointed out that the plaintiff had admitted before the Delhi High Court that “CardPe” was the prior user and adopter of the “Pe” formative mark and the said fact belies the plaintiff's submission that it was the innovator thereof.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P D Audikesavalu - Full Document

Phonepe Private Limited vs Digipe Fintech Private Limited on 22 August, 2023

In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of PhonePe v. Ezy Services, 2021 (86) PTC 437. Drawing attention to paragraph 8(i) of the very same judgment, it is pointed out that the plaintiff had admitted before the Delhi High Court that “CardPe” was the prior user and adopter of the “Pe” formative mark and the said fact belies the plaintiff's submission that it was the innovator thereof.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P D Audikesavalu - Full Document

Khandelwal Edible Oils Limited vs Landsmill Agro Private Limited on 22 December, 2023

He further cites paras 1 to 9 of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. Mastermind Publishing House10, para 6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India11, paras 1 and 9 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd. v. Pernod Ricard SA France12 and para 20 of my decision in Phonepe P. Ltd. v. Ezy Services13.
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next