M/S. L'Oreal vs . Heena Kangan Store / Defendant No. 4 on 12 October, 2015
Thus the features
of present case are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of
L'Oreal vs. Dushyant Shah case (Supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)Documents citing
M/S. L???Oreal vs Mr. Dushyant Shah on 28 September, 2011
Toni & Guy Products Ltd & Anr vs Shyam Sunder Nagpal on 22 November, 2013
), South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V.
and another v. Mohan Goldwater Breweries Ltd. & another, 184(2011) DLT
IA Nos. 17475/2012, 16394/2012, 17476/2012 & 13393/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2224/2012 Page 13 of 14
252, L'oreal (M/S) v. Mr. Dushyant Shah, 2011 VIII AD (Delhi) 630 and
Foodworld v. Foodworld Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (42) PTC 108 (Del.).
Since as per their own admission, the plaintiffs' case is that the defendant
has not used the trademark TONY & GIRL, the plaintiffs are not entitled to
claim damages. Thus, this Court would not have pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain the present suit as the plaintiffs have valued the relief of injunction
and delivery up at Rs.200/- each and only the relief of damages is valued at
Rs.20 lakhs. Consequently the plaint is liable to be returned for want of
pecuniary jurisdiction. Ordered accordingly.
M/S Guanji Marotrao Thaokar & Co vs M/S Vinod Biri Company on 31 October, 2013
15(b) It was observed in L'Oreal Vs. Dushyant Shah, 2011 (48) PTC 240
(Delhi) that a person need not adopt and use the whole of the mark of the plaintiff
and it is sufficient if the mark is used or proposed to be used by him is identical with
or deceptively similar to the mark of the plaintiff. The similarity between the two
marks can be phonetic, visual, structural or otherwise. In fact any clever person
seeking to encash upon the reputation and goodwill of an established brand would
not adopt that mark in toto and would make some changes here and there so that in
the event of his mark being challenged in the court, he may take the plea that the
mark adopted by him is not identical to the mark of the plaintiff. Hence, what the
TM No. 6 of 2010 Page No. 13 of 18
court is called upon to examine is whether the trademark used or proposed to be used
by the defendant is visually, phonetically or structurally or otherwise so similar to the
trademark of the plaintiff that it can be said to be deceptively similar.
M/S Lancome Parfums Et Beaute & Cie vs M/S Astron Laboratories Ltd on 24 August, 2015
In this fact of
the matter the relied upon precedents (1) Lancome Parfums ET Beaute
and CIE (supra); (2) Century Traders (supra); (3) Glaxo Group
Limited & Ors.(supra); (4) CibaGeigy Limited (supra); (5) Cisco
TM102/2011 M/s Lancome Parfums Et Beaute & Cie vs. M/s Astron Laboratories Ltd., Page 10 of 11
Technology, Inc (supra); (6) Delhi Public Society (supra); (7) L'Oreal
(supra); (8) Mysore Saree Udyog (supra); (9) Pratyush Kumar Jana &
Anr. (supra); (10) Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd & Anr. (supra);
and (11) Mars Incorporated (supra) are of no help to plaintiff company
to get relief(s) claimed for.
M/S. L'Oreal vs . Mr. Pappu & Anr. on 24 January, 2015
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. It is settled
proposition of law that the rejection of plaint is to be seen just on the basis of
allegations levelled in the plaint and supporting documents. Rejection of plaint
has nothing to do with the defence of the defendant. In this case, the plaintiff
has alleged in paras 29 & 43 of the plaint about carrying on the business and
having company owned business entities within the jurisdiction of this court.
Ld. Counsel for the defendants has heavily relied upon a judgement titled M/s
Lakhan Pal Shyam Kumar V. M/s. Ram Prasad Gupta & Anr., CS (OS)
2208/2006. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon
2011 (48) PTC 240 (Del) titled L'Oreal V. Dushyant Shah based on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India pronounced in Dodha House V.
S.K. Maingi (2006) 9 SCC 41. As per this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has distinguished having a business entity within the jurisdiction
of this court, "control and business" and term "carrying on the business".
However, this judgement has been considered by Hon'ble High Court of delhi
in many cases and this judgement has been distinguished on various
TM / CS No. 49/14 M/s. L'oreal Vs. Mr. Pappu & Anr. 2/3
occasions. The plea of the defendants is based on provision of Section 20
CPC, whereas this suit has been filed under Section 134 (1) of Trade Mark
Act, 199 which is a special law and confer the jurisdiction on the courts where
plaintiff carries on its business activities as well. The judgments relied by the
plaintiff, 2005 (30) PTC 28 (Del), 2009(39) PTC 358(Delhi.) (DB), RFA no.
17/2005 2011 (48) PTC 240 (Delhi) and FAO 198/2013 are dealing with the
said special law proposition of Section 134 (1) of Trade Marks Act and has
held that averments made in the plaint and having subordinate office within
the jurisdiction of this court is sufficient compliance of Section 134 (1& 2) of
Trade Marks Act.
1