Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (L&T;) vs Lachmi Narain Trades And Ors on 31 August, 2015

M/S Bright Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs . Narang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 13 December, 2022

The other three judgments i.e. Kamani Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhuwneshwar Refineries Pvt. Ltd., Suit No. 59/2014, SCC Online BOM 595,Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 90. and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Lachmi Narayan Traders & Ors. ILR (2008) II Delhi 687 are orders in relation to the interim directions. Therefore, they are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ampm Designs Thr. Partner Akash Mehta vs Intellectual Property Appellate Board ... on 29 October, 2021

51. Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel for respondent no.3, however urged that registration of a trade mark under a particular class in the Schedule-IV appended to the Trade Mark Rules is not decisive. The test of, 'field of activity' is no more valid. To bolster up this submission, Mr. Khandeparkar banked upon a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the 34/42 WPST4339-21.DOC case of Larsen and Toubro Limited vs. Lachmi Narain Trades and ors.12
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

Rpg Enterprises Limited vs Riju Ghoshal Trading As Rpg Opticals And ... on 21 March, 2022

17. It is clear from the above definitions that a trade mark includes a mark; mark includes a name; and a name includes an abbreviation of the name. Hence, RPG which is an abbreviation of 'R.P.Goenka' is a trade mark within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and is entitled to protection. This is not the first time that abbreviation is being sought to be protected in Court. The reference may be made to Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra); KSB Properties (supra); H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB (supra). In all of these cases, the acronym marks were under SSP 28/78 nmcd 1306 of 2019 final.doc consideration by the Courts and the Courts have given protection to the acronym marks. In the present case, the Plaintiff's trade mark RPG is a natural acronym derived from the name of its founder Rama Prasad Goenka, who was a renowned industrialist in India.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Htc Corporation vs Mr. Lv Degao & Ors. on 6 April, 2022

31. Relying on decisions in Larsen and Toubro (supra), it was submitted that commonality of field of activity was no longer the law. It was submitted that since more companies manufactured multiple products, such as, in this case, i.e. computing products and grooming products, there was likelihood of confusion that the plaintiff was also producing not only mobile handsets, etc., but also hair-trimmers, etc.. These are sold in the same shops and e-commerce platforms and unsuspecting customers may draw an incorrect conclusion of origin. There was every likelihood of confusion even though the products were different. Thus, both for infringement as well as passing off, the plaintiff Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 263/2020 Page 19 of 36 Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:06.04.2022 10:56:19 was entitled to interim injunction.
Delhi High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 1 - A Menon - Full Document

Pepsico Inc. & Anr. vs Jagpin Breweries Limited & Anr. on 1 May, 2023

18. In the instant case, "Mercedes" is a name given to a very high priced and extremely well engineered product. In my view, the defendant cannot dilute that by user of the name Mercedes with respect to a product like a thermos or a casserole." The observations have been assimilated in case law, by the courts in India, and applied, wherever trademark dilution was alleged (Ref Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Lachmi Narain Traders, ILR (2008) 2 Del 687, Sunder Parmanand Lalwani v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1969 Bom 24; Bata India Ltd. v. Pyare Lal & Co. Meerut City, AIR 1985 All 242; Kiriloskar Diesel Recon (P) Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd., AIR 1996 Bom 149)."
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

The Financial Times Ltd. vs The Times Publishing House Ltd. on 7 October, 2016

41. There is another reason for which I am of the view that the power vested in the Registrar and IPAB to allow cross-examination in such matters is to be sparingly exercised. The enquiry before them, in the matter of grant/refusal of registration or cancellation of registration is more in the nature of formation of opinion (and which in turn is more in the nature of „perception‟ on well defined parameters which have been developed over the years) on the basis of the trade mark and other documentary material on record. Even in actions for infringement and passing off where there clearly is a lis between adversaries, the evidence of witnesses generally plays a subordinate role in the court‟s final determination. For the test of „deceptive similarity‟ the courts are never swayed by and do not surrender or yield to the testimony of witnesses and which are but an opinion. The testimonies of witnesses in such cases merely provide information which the courts use to form their own opinion. Supreme Court, in Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 147 followed by W.P.(C) Nos.2735/12, 2737/12, 2745/12 &3483/12 Page 57 of 61 Division Bench of this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Lachmi Narain Trades (2008) 149 DLT 46 and by me recently in Staar Surgical Company Vs. Polymer Technologies International MANU/DE/2307/2016 (to dismiss a suit in limine) held that whether there is a likelihood of deception or confusion arising, is a matter for decision by the Court and no witness is entitled to say whether the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion. This position which obtains in infringement/passing off proceedings, must equally apply to proceedings before Registrar/IPAB including in formation of opinion of „descriptive‟, „distinctive‟ and „reputation‟. The cross- examination of deponents of affidavit evidence thus does not serve much purpose in such proceedings.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 5 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Staar Surgical Company vs Polymer Technologies International & ... on 19 July, 2016

26. I am also of the view that the test ultimately has to be applied by the Courts on formation of a view in accordance with the principles laid down from time to time including in the judgments supra and even if an opportunity is given to the plaintiff to lead evidence, the self serving evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff of having got confused is rarely of any help. Supreme Court, in Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 147 followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. Lachmi Narain Trades (2008) 149 DLT 46 held that, whether there is a likelihood of deception or confusion arising, is a matter for decision by the Court and no witness is entitled to say whether the mark is likely to deceive or to cause confusion.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

H&M; Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr vs Hm Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 31 May, 2018

vii) that on account of extensive use and promotion, a secondary meaning stands attached in respect of the mark / name / artwork H&M/ / and the same is exclusively associated by members of the trade and public with plaintiffs and plaintiffs products; reliance is placed on B.K. Engineering Company Vs. Ubhi Enterprises 1986 (6) PTC 291 (Del), Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Lachmi Narain Traders (2008) 149 DLT 46 (DB) and Laxmikant V. Patel Vs. Chetanbhai Shah (2002) 3 SCC 65.
Delhi High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 17 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Novartis Ag & Anr. vs Novaegis (India) Private Limited on 20 February, 2023

26, 29 to 33 of Sanofi India Ltd. Vs. Universal Neutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd.7; (vii) the plaintiff is using „KIND‟ in a plurality of registered marks as a common prefix or suffix and which has become the distinguishing element of the family of marks and is recognized by the customers as an identifying trade mark in itself; in these circumstances, even though the defendants‟ mark may not be close to a particular member of the family, the use of the distinguishing family feature or characteristics is likely to cause confusion; reliance is placed on McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Fourth Edition, Vol.4 23:61 at pages 23-244 and 23-245; (viii) adoption of essential feature „KIND‟ in the defendants‟ trade name is use of the plaintiff‟s registered trade marks within the meaning of Section 29(5); reliance is placed on paras no.7, 9 to 11, 15,17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 29 to 33 and 53 of Sanofi India Ltd.7 supra, on paras no.5 to 8 of Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing & Agencies Vs. Shree Sita Chawal Udyog Mill8 and on paras no.17 to 18 of Amar Singh Chawal Wala Vs. Shree Vardhman Rice9; (ix) defendants‟ arguments, that Section 29(5) only covers adoption of identical mark, is contrary to the legislative intent behind Section 29(5); reliance in this regard is placed on para no.44 of Bloomberg Finance LP Vs. Prafull Saklecha10, para 15 of London Rubber Vs. Durex11, Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Lachmi Narain Trades12, para 7 of Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. Vs. The Zamindara Engineering Co.13, and, paras no.30 and 33 of Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd.6; (x) use by other companies of similar mark and which 4 (2015) 61 PTC 465 5 (1965) 1 SCR 737 6 (2014) 58 PTC 136 (Del) 7 (2014) 60 PTC 593 (Del) 8 (2010) 44 PTC 293 9 (2009) 40 PTC 417 (Del) 10 (2013) 56 PTC 243 11 (1964) 2 SCR 211 12 (2015) 64 PTC 386 13 AIR 1970 SC 1649 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(COMM) 86/2023 Page 7 of 26 Signing Date:21.02.2023 19:46:10 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001235 others have a minuscule turnover, is no ground to deny interim injunction to the plaintiff; reliance is placed on para no.22 of Rolex SA Vs. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.14, para no.33 of Novartis AG Vs. Crest Pharma Pvt. Ltd.15, and, para no.50 of Express Bottlers Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pepsi Inc.16; (xi) the argument of the defendants, on the basis of the reply of the plaintiff to the Registrar of Trade Marks at the time of seeking registration of its various other marks, is misconceived as the claim of the plaintiff is on the basis of series / family of marks of the plaintiff and the principles applicable thereto would not apply in the instant case; and, (xii) the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 Next