Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing Godfrey Phillips India Limited vs P.T.I Private Limited & Ors. on 22 December, 2017

Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt Ltd vs Imperia Structure Limited & Ors on 10 May, 2019

39. It has been held in Godfrey Phillips India Limited Vs. P.T.I. Private Limited 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12509, Mallcom (India) Limited Vs. Rakesh Kumar (2019) 259 DLT 1 and K.R. Impex Vs. Punj Llyod Ltd. 2019 SCC Online Del 6667 that if the Commercial Courts empowered to pass summary judgment are also to allow trial on such mala fide pleas taken as an afterthought, to wriggle out of admission of liability, when in fact the defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim, the same would not subserve the whole purpose of enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and treating commercial suits differently from ordinary suits. It is not as if some officers of the defendant/Counter CS(COMM) 141/2016 Page 23 of 25 Claimant sitting in the Police Station made a statement which was incorrectly recorded. Here, in the Chamber of the Advocate for the defendant/Counter Claimant, the complaint was got typed, got signed from the defendant/complainant and filed and pursued in the Court, an order of registration of FIR on the basis thereof obtained and the defendant/Counter Claimant, merely by writing a letter as the letter dated 27th February, 2017 cannot undo an admission.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Cfa Institute vs Brickwork Finance Academy on 6 October, 2020

64. Further, Mr. Sai Deepak submitted that, a reading of Section 29(1) makes it abundantly clear that for the provision to CS (COMM) 619/2018 Page 43 of 63 be attracted, the defendant must use an identical or deceptively similar mark in the course of trade in relation to goods or services in respect of which the plaintiff's mark is registered and the manner of use by the defendant must constitute use in a Trade Mark sense. In the facts of this case, it was his claim that the competing marks were neither identical or similar as explained by him in the context of passing off, nor was the use of CFA program in the defendant's brochure is in a trade mark sense and therefore, the conjunctive requirements of Section 29(1) have not been satisfied by the Plaintiff. He also stated that in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v.Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, (1965) I SCR 737, the test of deceptive similarity, in particular the class of customers, remains the same for infringement and passing off. Reliance is also placed on a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. P.T.I. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 (73) PTC 178 (Del), wherein the Court while allowing an application for summary judgment against the plaintiff under Order XIIIA, held in the context of cigarettes that the class of consumers was a relevant factor in determining deceptive similarity, to contend that defendant's position with respect to class of customers for the purpose of deceptive similarity in the context of an action for passing off is equally valid and applicable to the plaintiff's claim of trade mark infringement.
Delhi High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 1 - V K Rao - Full Document

Vst Industries Limited vs Rudra Ventures Private Limited & Ors. on 7 January, 2022

10. Learned senior counsel empathetically submitted that the consumers of cigarettes are very particular about the brands they smoke and it is based upon one's choice owing to the taste of the cigarette and other parameters such as length, filter etc. To submit so, reliance was placed upon decisions of this Court in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. P.T.I. Private Limited & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12509 and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Scotch Whiskey Association (2008) 10 SCC 723.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S K Kait - Full Document

Smt Satula Devi vs Mr Rajeev Sharma & Ors. on 10 April, 2023

Insofar as the plea of Mr. Sethi and Mr. Nayar that the plaint need to be rejected by this Court suo moto by exercising its powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC,1908, on the grounds stipulated under the said Order, is concerned, there cannot be any dispute to the said proposition in view of the settled position of law as relied upon by Mr. Sethi and Mr. Nayar in the cases of: Patil Automation Private Limited & Others (supra), Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju (supra), Christian Louboutin Sas (supra), Renu Khhullar (supra), Godfrey Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH CS (OS) 203/2022 Page 44 of 81 Signing Date:10.04.2023 16:41:07 2023:DHC:2395 Phillips India Limited (supra), Govind Narayan (supra) Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others (supra), Saleem Bhai and Others (supra), Azhar Hussain (supra) and T. Arivandandam (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Itc Limited vs Golden Tobacco Limited

45.Mr.Sathish Parasaran then drew our attention to the Single Judge judgment of Delhi High Court dated 22.07.2017 in the case of Godfrey Phillips India Limited vs. P.T.I. Private Limited and Others reported in MANU/DE/5812/2017. Citing the proposition of law laid down by the Delhi High Court, Mr.Sathish Parasaran then contented that GOLD FLAKE is only a composite mark and no protection can be granted for GOLD FLAKE in favour of the appellant plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Exide Industries Limited vs Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited on 25 July, 2025

In support of such contentions, the respondent relies on the following decisions: Kellogg Company vs. Pravin Kumar, ILR (1996) II Delhi 11, Dr. Martens Australia Pty Ltd. vs. Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd. (1999) FCA 461, Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73, Colgate Palmolive Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Patel & Anr. (2005) SCC OnLine Del 1439, Wal-Mart Stores vs. Samara Bros, Cipla Ltd. 8 vs MK Pharmaceuticals (2007) SCC OnLine Del 2012, Star Bazaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Trent Ltd. (2010) SCC OnLie Del 4764, Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd. & Ors. vs. Asda Stores Ltd. (2012) EWCA Civ 24, Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. ITC Ltd. (2017) SCC OnLine Del 7391, Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. vs. P.T.I Pvt Ltd. (2017) SCC OnLine 12509, Khadi and Village Industries Commission vs. Girdhar Industries and Another (2023) SCC OnLine Del 8446 and Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. vs. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (2024) 2 SCC
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R K Kapur - Full Document
1   2 Next