Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Uniply Industries Ltd vs Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 1 May, 2001

Cadbury Ltd. And 2 vs Itc Ltd. And 1 on 20 July, 2005

It is true that it is not possible to discern from the telecast certificates and the excise invoices that the label of the said product was gold and purple, in colour, but the cumulative effect of all the evidence read together along with the pleadings certainly points towards the adoption of the gold and purple label with effect from 1994. However, it is unfortunate that the Trial Court has not even cared to discuss the aforesaid evidence which is relevant and has material bearing on the controversy. The Trial Court has brushed aside the evidence on the specious ground that the there is no clear pleading regarding actual use of the impugned label. The evidence in the form of excise invoices has been discarded by placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uniply Industries v. Unicorn Plywood Limited (supra), wherein the declaration made before the excise authorities had been found to be dubious by the High Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Thke Renaissance Cochin vs M/S.Renaissance Hotels Inc.Marriotr on 28 April, 2009

The argument of Mr. Joseph Markose that the judgment in Cadila RFA.No.235/2008 35 Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - 2001 (5) SCC 73 is applicable only when the marks in question are deceptively similar and not when they are the same, is fairly strong and is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uniply Industries Ltd. v. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. - AIR 2001 SC 2083. At paragraph 6 of the above judgment it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows:-
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P C Kuriakose - Full Document

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited vs United Biotech Private Limited on 4 May, 2026

In the case of Uniply Industries Limited vs. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the aspect of prior user and in that context noted that even prior small sales of the mark are sufficient to establish priority, the test being to determine continuous prior user and volumes of sale or the degree of familiarity SQ Pathan/Sairaj 41/44 ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 21:49:25 ::: IA-L-19536-2025 & IA-5318-2025-J.odt of the public with the mark. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further noted that contrary view has also been taken where the Courts have classified small sales volume as so small and inconsequential which facts have to be thrashed out at the time of trial. The Plaintiff in the present case has demonstrated prior use of its mark.
Bombay High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Biotech Private Limited vs Sun Pharma Laboratories Private ... on 4 May, 2026

In the case of Uniply Industries Limited vs. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the aspect of prior user and in that context noted that even prior small sales of the mark are sufficient to establish priority, the test being to determine continuous prior user and volumes of sale or the degree of familiarity SQ Pathan/Sairaj 41/44 ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 21:49:39 ::: IA-L-19536-2025 & IA-5318-2025-J.odt of the public with the mark. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further noted that contrary view has also been taken where the Courts have classified small sales volume as so small and inconsequential which facts have to be thrashed out at the time of trial. The Plaintiff in the present case has demonstrated prior use of its mark.
Bombay High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudhir Batra vs Arjies Aluminium Udyog And The ... on 10 February, 2005

The learned counsel explained the proposition of law laid down in the case of Uniply Industries Ltd. Vs. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - 2001 PTC 417(SC), wherein it has been held that in matter of inherently distinctive marks, the ownership is governed by the priority of the use of such marks. In the instant case, surely, the user of the appellant is much prior in time.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next