Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Castral India Ltd vs Tide Water Oil Co.(India) Ltd on 9 March, 2010

M/S.Whirpool Of India Ltd vs M/S.Videocon Industries Ltd on 25 July, 2012

In this context, it would be necessary to refer to the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court (Ruma Pal, J., as Her Ladyship then was) in the case of Castrol India Ltd. v. Tide Water Oil Co. (I) Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment also the contention was raised that though there was similarity in respect of shape and configuration, since there was no similarity in respect of proportion of the container and colour used, the plaintiff therein was not entitled for the relief as claimed. It was observed thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

M/S.Whirpool Of India Ltd vs M/S.Videocon Industries Ltd on 25 July, 2012

In this context, it would be necessary to refer to the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court (Ruma Pal, J., as Her Ladyship then was) in the case of Castrol India Ltd. v. Tide Water Oil Co. (I) Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment also the contention was raised that though there was similarity in respect of shape and configuration, since there was no similarity in respect of proportion of the container and colour used, the plaintiff therein was not entitled for the relief as claimed. It was observed thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Diageo Brands B.V. & Anr. vs Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd on 19 December, 2022

2018 SCC OnLine Del 10823 : (2018) 253 DLT 8 34 (60) PTC 155 (Bom) : 2015 (1) Bom CR 137 35 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 437 Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 30/2022 Page 60 of 143 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:20.12.2022 21:43:10 Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005661 Castrol India Limited v. Tide Water Oil Co.(I) Limited22:(supra) (i) The word 'imitation' does not mean
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 3 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Whirlpool Of India Ltd vs Videocon Industries Ltd on 27 May, 2014

31. A look at the above comparative charts along with the charts set out/annexed to the Plaint and the affidavit in rejoinder of the Plaintiff giving a comparative analysis of the common features and similarities of the Defendant's product and the Plaintiff's registered designs establishes beyond any doubt that the Defendant has slavishly/brazenly copied/imitated the Plaintiff's design which clearly satisfies the test for infringement and/or piracy as laid down in the judgments in Castrol (supra) and Kemp (supra). Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the Defendant's products are substantially different from the Plaintiff's registered design.
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 27 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next