Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs A B Sugars Limited & Anr. on 31 October, 2023

Nilkamal Crates And Contaners & Anr. vs Ms. Reena Rajpal & Anr. on 6 November, 2023

27. Mr. Satish Kumar sought to place reliance on the fact that the registrations for the device marks and was granted to the plaintiff by inserting a disclaimer, disclaiming all rights to exclusivity in respect of user of the letter "N". As I have already held in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. A.B. Sugars Ltd.10, the only effect of such a disclaimer is that the plaintiff cannot seek an injunction against infringement, by claiming exclusivity over the disclaimed part. In other words, had the plaintiffs' claim been that the defendants' mark was deceptively simlar to the plaintiffs only because of the common "N" motif, the plaintiffs would have had no case, as "N" was specifically disclaimed while obtaining registration for the device mark.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd vs Protrition Products Llp & Ors. on 24 November, 2023

(e) the use of a registered trade mark, being one of two or more trade marks registered under this Act which are identical or nearly resemble each other, in exercise of the right to the use of that trade mark given by registration under this Act Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 533/2022 Page 13 of 17 Digitally Signed By:HARIOM Signing Date:24.11.2023 19:03:08 ABZORB to registration. That argument is, prima facie, not available to the defendants, applying the principle laid down by this Court in Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan11, which has been followed by me in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. A.B. Sugars Ltd.12 The defendants having themselves applied for registration of the ABBZORB mark, it is not open to Mr. Ghose to contend that the plaintiff could not have obtained registration of the ABZORB mark as it is a word of common English usage. He relies, for this purpose, on Section 9(1)13.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

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

45.3 Mr. Makkar's response is, with respect, far from satisfactory. If ―CHAKRA‖ is descriptive of the oil, ―CHAKRA KOLHU‖ would be even more so, as is apparent from the literature that Mr. Makkar has himself placed before the Court. Having, thus, applied for registration of the mark ―CHAKRA KOLHU‖, it is not open to the defendant to submit that ―CHAKRA‖ is a descriptive mark. There are several authorities to support this proposition, including Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan29, which has been followed by me in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. A.B. Sugars Ltd.30 45.4 On merits, however, I am of the opinion that the mark ―CHAKRA‖ cannot be regarded as ―descriptive‖.
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Yatra Online Limited vs Mach Conferences And Events Limited on 22 August, 2025

56. The Defendant has relied upon the case of Pernod Ricard (supra), which holds that the plaintiff cannot claim infringement of the mark, which is part of disclaimer as the same cannot constitute the basis for the infringement. As the word 'YATRA' is specifically disclaimed by the learned Registrar of Trade Marks, which has been accepted by the Plaintiff, the same cannot be the basis for alleging infringement of the said Trade Mark.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1