Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt Ltd vs Procter & Gamble Manufacturing ... on 9 May, 2014

Sagar Lookouts vs Maharashtra Housing And Area ... on 18 January, 2023

30. On scrutiny of aforesaid facts, it is difficult to accept {18} wp (L) 30316.22 final.docx contention of the petitioner that his 47 advertising boards could not have been re-evaluated or the respondent No.2 was estopped from re- evaluating entire bid including the eligibility of 47 advertising boards in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 6731 of 2022. This discussion brings us to the judgments relied by petitioner in cases of Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd vs. Practor and Gamble Manufacturing (Delhi High Court), B.L. Shreedhar and others Vs. K.M. Munireddy (dead) and others (SC) as well as Premlata @ Sunita vsm Naseeb Bee and others dated 23.3.2022 Civil Appeal No. 2055-56 OF 2022 (SC). We have no difficulty to accept cardinal principle reiterated in these judgments, however on facts, petitioner has nothing to bank upon proposition highlighted in reported judgments.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Fdc Limited vs Tas Med India Private Limited And Anr. on 13 December, 2021

Reliance has been also placed on judgments/orders in Win-Medicare Limited v. Somacare Laboratories Ltd., 1996 SCC OnLine Del 844, Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1064, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Dua Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 1988 SCC OnLine Del 149, Stiefel Laboratories v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd., (2014) SCC OnLine Del 3405, Amba Lal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. V. Sara Pharmaceuticals and Ors. [order dt. 08th April, 1982 in Suit no. 1133/1981], Syncom Formulations (India) Ltd. v. Sas Pharmaceuticals, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 364, Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8899, Himalaya Drug Company v. S.B.L. Limited, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5701, Wyeth Holdings Corporation v. Burnet Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 76, Luxembourg Brands S.A. R.L. v. G.M. Pens International Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12541, Novartis AG v. Crest Pharma Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. [Order dt. 24th July, 2009 in CS(OS) 851/2008], Bade Miya v. Mubin Ahmed Zahurislam, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 430, Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries v. Biochem Synergy Limited, 1997 SCC OnLine Bom 639, Anchor Health and Beauty Care CS(COMM) 269/2021 Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:13.12.2021 19:41:56 Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2968, Timken Company v. Timken Services Private Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2237 and GSK Consumer Healthcare S.A. v. EG Pharmaceuticals, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10796.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - A Menon - Full Document

Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. vs Minda Oils India Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 20 September, 2022

c. 'MINDA' is the surname of the founder of Minda Group of Companies and Chairman of the UNO MINDA and SPARK Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 51/2022 Page 11 of 59 Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:22.09.2022 19:23:20 MINDA Group of Companies and has been bonafidely adopted by the Plaintiffs. In any case, no defence under Sections 12, 30 and 35 of the Act can be claimed by the Defendants, since the trademarks of the Plaintiffs have acquired distinctiveness through continuous, extensive and uninterrputed use over the decades, giving rights to the Plaintiffs to restrain and enjoin any third party from using identical or deceptively similar marks. Per contra Defendants', on the other hand, have given no explanation to adopt the mark MINDA apart from a vague plea that it is a name of a village where the forefathers lived. No proof of association with the said village has been filed by the Defendants and in any case it is not open to them to contend that MINDA is a generic mark after they have themselves applied for its registration in different forms. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan & Anr., 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27 and Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2968.
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

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

He also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited vs. Protector and Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Company Limited and Other 13, wherein at para Nos.13, 14 and 18 it was held that when defendants attempted to register a 12 (2014) 208 DLT 723 13 2014(59) PTC 105 (Del) 55 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CCCA Nos.20 of 2021 & Batch mark, it could not later contend that it was generic.
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

He also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited vs. Protector and Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Company Limited and Other 13, wherein at para Nos.13, 14 and 18 it was held that when defendants attempted to register a 12 (2014) 208 DLT 723 13 2014(59) PTC 105 (Del) 55 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CCCA Nos.20 of 2021 & Batch mark, it could not later contend that it was generic.
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rtc Restaurants (India) Limited vs Ruby Tuesday Inc And Anr on 10 October, 2014

In Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (TIANJIN) Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2014 (59) PTC 105 (Del), while dealing with I.A.11461/2013 in CS(OS)1431/2013, a plea raised by the Defendant that the mark "ALL-AROUND PROTECTION" was a generic word was rejected as Defendant itself had applied for registration of the mark "ALL-ROUNDER".
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr. vs Max Healthcare Institute Limited on 26 March, 2025

E. MAX is not an abbreviation in English language of the word 'maximum' and can at best be said to be used in slang language. It is also not as if the word MAX, in relation to hospital and healthcare services, is a generic or a laudatory word. Moreover, the plaintiff admittedly holds registration for MAX in relation to hospital and healthcare services and it is not in the jurisdiction of this Court to hold the registration to have been wrongly granted. The exclusive jurisdiction therefor is with the Registrar of Trade Marks and/or with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The defendant did not take any objection to registration sought by the plaintiff of the label/device marks with the word MAX in relation to hospital/healthcare services in the last 16 years since when the marks of the plaintiff have been registered. On the contrary, the defendant, also in the business of providing hospital/healthcare services under the name of Sunshine, when desirous of changing the said name, chose the word MAX and also applied for registration of label/device marks with the said word. The consistent view of this Court in Automatic Electric Ltd. v R.K. Dhawan6, The Indians Hotel Company Ltd. v Jiva Institute of Vedic Science and Culture7, Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.8, appeal preferred whereagainst was dismissed vide judgment reported as Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. v Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd9and SLP(C) No. 15928-15929/2014 preferred where against were dismissed on 3rd July, 2014, and Vega Auto Accessories (P) Ltd. v S.K. Jain Bros Helmet (I) Pvt. Ltd10 has been that a defendant who has itself applied for registration of a mark is stopped from contending the mark to be not registrable, when faced with an action for infringement. The said argument is thus not available to the defendant.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 Next