Bala Arichandra Tex, Represented By Its ... vs Bharat Arichandra Tex, Represented By ... on 27 April, 2006
(viii) In Kali Aerated Water Works, Tiruchirapalli, v. Rashid , a Division Bench of this High Court has held as follows :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)Dr.J.R.K'S Research And vs M/S.Sanjeevi Pharma on 10 February, 2023
xiv.Kali Arated Water Works, Tiruchirapalli Vs.
Rashid and others, 1987 SCC OnLine Mad 198.
Perry Bottling Company vs S.S. Soda & Soft Drinks Company And Ors. on 15 February, 2002
21. To give answer to the above question, the trial court considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. J.P. & Company, Mysore (1), and the decision reported in : Kali Aerated Water Works Tiruchirapalll v. Rashid and Ors. (2), and held that the above judgments do not help the appellant on facts and to distinguish the plaintiff's case, the trial court again held that plaintiff's trade mark is registered as "Perry's (R) Fruit Beer", whereas by looking to the trade mark of the defendant, it cannot be said that any person will be deceived.
Medivision Scan And Diagnostic ... vs Medivision-Ind Diagnostic Centre on 17 May, 2004
In Kali Aerated Water Works, Tiruchirappalli v. Rashidd and Ors., AIR 1989 Madras 9, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that merely because the plaintiffs have not established an exclusive right to use the trade name or because of the fact that there is simultaneous and concurrent use of the same name by other persons as referred to in that judgment, it cannot be said that the public would not have associated the trade with that of the plaintiff.
S.V.S. Oil Mills, Rep. By Its Partner, ... vs S.V.N. Agro-Refineries And S.V. ... on 28 June, 2004
R.R. Proteins And Agro Limited vs Hari Shankar Singhania & Another on 20 August, 2010
As to the tests to be applied if one or more words are added to the word
forming the subject-matter of a previous registered word mark, the plaintiff has
brought a judgment reported at AIR 1989 Mad 9 (Kali Aerated Water Works,
Tiruchirapalli v. Rashid). The plaintiff in that case was the registered owner of the
mark "Kali" in respect of the class covering aerated water. Erstwhile employees of
the plaintiff started a business of manufacturing aerated water and selling the
product under the mark "Sri New Kali." In addition to the claim based on the
word mark, the plaintiff also contended that the defendant's label was a
colourable imitation of the plaintiff's. The trial court decreed the suit in the
plaintiff's favour but fixed a nominal damage and declined the other reliefs for the
10
defendants to produce in court the dice and other material used for printing their
labels. The defendant's appeal succeeded and a Letters Patent appeal therefrom
was carried to a Division Bench of the Madras High Court which found that the
plaintiff had established the essential ingredients of a passing-off action and was
entitled to a decree.
M/S. Rana Steels vs M/S. Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. on 14 January, 2010
This
judgment is also referred in the case of Kali Aerated Water Works,
CS (OS) No.1459/2007 Page 11 of 15
Tiruchirapalli v. Rashid and Ors., AIR 1989 Madras 9 where the two
trade marks „Kali‟ and „Sri New Kali‟ were held to be similar.
1