Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.63 seconds)
Documents citing Radico Khaitan Limited vs Carlsberg India Private Limited on 16 September, 2011

Vintage Distillers Limited vs Ramesh Chand Parekh on 16 November, 2022

In Radico Khaitan Limited v. Carlsberg India Private Limited (supra), the claim of infringement was with respect to the mark 8PM by use of the mark PALONE 8 PM by the Defendants. The issue before the Court was whether a single numeral 8 in the facts of the case could be protected while comparing the two marks for goods falling in classes 32 and 33 separately. The Court found that numeral 8 Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMAL KUMARCS(COMM) 292/2022 Page 53 of 58 Signing Date:19.11.2022 13:20:27 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004894 was common to trade for alcohol. Court also noted that the cases referred to by the Plaintiff have no bearing as in all the said cases, the trademarks were not single letter marks and the Defendants in those cases had appropriated the entire mark of the Plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Technova Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Technova Imaging Systems (P) Limited

42. In the above cited decision viz. Radico Khaitan Limited case, the scope of Section 29 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as well as Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 also came up for consideration. The facts of the case would disclose that an application was filed praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, namely Carlsberg India Private Limited from using the numeral '8' as a trademark for the purpose of marketing it's products. It is to be noted at this juncture http://www.judis.nic.in 54 that the plaintiff company therein is a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages, which include liquor both Indian and Indian made foreign liquor, country liquor etc., and the defendant is engaged in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages including beer and other beverages. Sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff, as observed in paragraph No.6 of the said judgment, is that use of the numeral '8' by the defendant in relation to one of it's products which is beer under the mark PALONE infringes and violates the statutory and common law rights of the plaintiff in it's well known and registered mark '8' PM, numeral 8 being its essential, distinguishing and identifying feature. It is relevant to extract the following portions of the said judgment:
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Sumoson Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Radico Khaitan Limited on 3 November, 2018

2. The material facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were the Directors of the petitioner No.1 having its registered office at 33-A, Manohar Pukar Road, Kolkatta and Branch Office at Plot No. J-1, Block B-I, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Madhura Road, New Delhi. The respondent-company through authorized representative, namely, Ajay Kumar Dadwal instituted a Complaint titled, "Radico Khaitan Limited Vs. Sumoson Exports Pvt. Ltd. and ors" under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners on 23rd June, 2011, which is pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Sub Registrar, Srinagar and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to take cognizance on the CRMC No. 273/2011 a/w IA No. 302/2011 Page 1 of 11 2 aforesaid complaint and issued summons pursuant to order dated 23rd June, 2011 for appearance of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Before submitting the facts in precise, as contained in the Complaint and the grounds of the present petition, it would be necessary to submit that winding up application bearing CP No. 363 of 2009 and the application, seeking appointment of provisional Liquidator being CA No. 850/2010 came to be filed by the petitioner No.1 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and the Calcutta High Court vide order 27th June, 2011, appointed Provisional Liquidator of the company for a period of two months thereby directing the company not to sell or transfer or encumber or part with any of its immovable assets. It was further directed that the statement of affairs of the company together with accounts will be furnished to Provisional Liquidator on weekly basis and the Provisional Liquidator was empowered to ascertain the debts of the company, which may be collected by him through its creditors. The company was directed not to operate its Bank account without the leave of the Provisional Liquidator.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S K Gupta - Full Document

Gurnam Singh vs G.I. Cosmetics on 12 November, 2018

(DB); (iv) Aravind Laboratories Vs. Modicare MANU/TN/2708/2011; (v) Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/5189/2017; (vi) Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. MANU/MH/2013/2016; (vii) S.B.L. Ltd. Vs. Himalaya Drug Co. MANU/DE/0311/1997; (viii) Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd. Vs. Pernod Ricard S.A. France MANU/DE/2742/2009; (ix) Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. MANU/DE/6904/2011; (x) Radico Khaitan Limited Vs. Carlsberg India Private Limited MANU/DE/3581/2011; (xi) Skyline Education Institute (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. S.L. Vaswani MANU/SC/0009/2010; and, (xii) order dated 10th July, 2007 in IA Nos.525/2007 and 1632/2007 in CS(OS) No.82/2007 titled Canon Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. B. Mahajan, with Rajesh Jain supra being the first judgment in the compilation, and has with reference thereto contended that no injunction to use of the mark 'BLUE VERY' was granted in the suit at the instance of the holder of the registered mark 'BLUE VALLEY'. The senior counsel for the defendant has drawn attention to paras 3, 14 & 15 of the said judgment as reported in Manupatra.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

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

50. Defendants have also relied on the judgment in Radico Khaitan Limited v. Carlsberg India Private Limited, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3925, more particularly, para 30 thereof, wherein this Court observed that it is always not necessary to infer that trade practice is honest solely because the manner of use of expression is in descriptive sense and not in a prominent fashion. The converse may be true also in some cases and there are certain industries wherein special emphasis has to be given to the said expression upon the product or an ingredient of the product, so as to catch the customers or attract the consumers, rather than using it as a small word on the label. It was further held that the decisive test for examining the honest practice is not prominence or non-prominence of the expression, which though may be relevant but much will depend upon the manner of use of the expression as warranted in the said industry, which will set out the limit for what can be honest or dishonest. The judgment is wholly inapplicable to the present case since the word 'MIRINDA' is prima facie far from descriptive and moreover, Defendants cannot be allowed to raise this argument, having themselves applied for claiming exclusive right over the word which is MIRINDA's transliteration in Hindi. It needs no emphasis that Plaintiffs' mark MIRINIDA has acquired huge goodwill and reputation and going by the strength of the mark, Defendants' use of a mark which is a transliteration with phonetic identity, cannot be counterbalanced by the defence of honest and concurrent user. [Ref.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs A B Sugars Limited & Anr. on 31 October, 2023

Even otherwise, contends the defendant, relying on para 44 of United Breweries Ltd v. Khodays Breweries Ltd Industries Ltd26, para 82 of Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. Scotch Whisky Association27, para 40 of Radico Khaitan Ltd v. Carlsberg India Pvt Ltd28 and para 31 of Lowenbrau AG v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd29 , to contend that the brands named by the defendant are well known in India and had established cross-border reputation.
Delhi High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Suresh Kumar Garg vs . Pramod Kumar on 1 May, 2015

The defendant has further relied upon judgment titled "Radico Khaitan Ltd. Vs. Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (48) PTC 1 Del wherein the Hon'ble Court has discussed regarding monopoly in single letter or numberal. But these are not applicable to the facts of the case and are not helpful for defendant. Rather in these judgments, it is made out that in special circumstances, numerical /generic word can also achieve uniqueness, if it is proved.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1