Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Gufic Ltd. & Another vs Clinique Laboratories, Llc & Anr on 9 July, 2010

Pidilite Industries Limited vs Poma-Ex Products And 15 Ors on 2 August, 2017

I am in agreement with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Gufic Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Clinique Laboratories, LLC and Anr.(supra). In my view, there is thus no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that no cause of action is disclosed by the plaintiff in so far as the infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiff is concerned. The necessary documents can be produced by the plaintiff at the stage of oral and documentary evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 5 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

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

In the case of M/s Gufic Ltd & Another vs Clinique Laboratrories, LLC and Anr(supra), the rival marks were CLINIQUE and SKINCLINIQ. The Delhi High Court considered the whole mark Skincliniq to hold that there cannot be dissection of the mark into "skin" and "cliniq" and then to compare the parts. The proposition of law is well settled that what is required to be considered are the essential features and it is sufficient if the impugned mark bears an overall similarity to the registered mark. The application of the settled principles to facts of each case would differ depending on the marks produced for comparison. Pertinently, the Delhi High Court held that the word skincliniq is one word and not two separate words, which is not so in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Under Armour, Inc. vs Anish Agarwal & Anr. on 29 May, 2024

(emphasis added) 15.20. Most importantly, the pricing of plaintiff's and the defendant's products, is entirely different. While average price of plaintiff's products is around Rs.2,000/-, the defendant's products are around Rs.799//- per t-shirt. This reflects that the brands operate in different segments and yet again, one must advert to this aspect in relation to the sophisticated consumer as also a different consumer. The issue of a different price point was highlighted by Courts inter alia in GUFIC Ltd. v. Clinique Laboratories, LLC, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2322:
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bloomberg Finance Lp vs Prafull Saklecha & Ors. on 11 October, 2013

In support of such submission the Plaintiff has in its written submissions referred to the decision of the Single Judge in Clinique Laboratories v. Gufic Ltd. 2009 (41) PTC 41 (Del) as well as the decision in Gufic Ltd. v. Clinique Laboratories 2010 (43) PTC 788 (Del) which did not interfere with the decision under appeal to the extent it held that where the Court is prima facie of the view that the registration of the Defendant was invalid an interim injunction restraining infringement could be granted.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 38 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S Mohan Meakin Limited vs A.B. Sugars Limited on 10 October, 2013

27. Though in some of the judgments the tests to be applied in the case of passing-off and in the case of infringement of trademark has blurred, with the Division Bench of this Court in Gufic Ltd. Vs. Clinique Laboratories LLC 2010 (43) PTC 788 (Del) holding that the tests of deceptive similarity in the case of infringement is the same as in the case of passing-off action, where the marks are not identical but in my humble opinion the said test in the case of infringement is to be confined only to comparison of the marks and the factors of pricing, trade channels etc., which in a passing-off action, in spite of similarity of marks may deprive the plaintiff of an injunction, can have no applicability in a infringement action once similarity is established.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014

In the case of Gufic Ltd. v. Clinique Laboratories13, the plaintiff therein had filed a suit in respect of infringement of its trademark 'CLINIQUE'. An ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. An application for vacating the injunction was moved by the defendants. It was the case of the defendants that they were using mark 'CLINIQUE' for which they held a registration and, therefore, they could not be injuncted. The plaintiff countered this case of the defendant by contending that the trademark 'CLINIQUE' held by the defendants could not have been granted and it was bad in law and was liable to be ignored for the purpose of interim orders. The learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court rejected the arguments of the defendants that since the mark 'CLINIQUE' was registered in their favour, the Court could not go beyond the registration at the interlocutory stage. The learned Judge observed as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 36 - M S Shah - Full Document

Shakti Bhog Foods Limited vs Parle Products Private Limited on 23 December, 2014

In the case of Gufic Ltd. v. Clinique Laboratories13, the plaintiff therein had filed a suit in respect of infringement of its trademark 'CLINIQUE'. An ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. An application for vacating the injunction was moved by the defendants. It was the case of the defendants that they were using mark 'CLINIQUE' for which they held a registration and, therefore, they could not be injuncted. The plaintiff countered this case of the defendant by contending that the trademark 'CLINIQUE' held by the defendants could not have been granted and it was bad in law and was liable to be ignored for the purpose of interim orders. The learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court rejected the arguments of the defendants that since the mark 'CLINIQUE' was registered in their favour, the Court could not go beyond the registration at the interlocutory stage. The learned Judge observed as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next