Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (5.61 seconds)
Documents citing Lowenbrau Ag & Another vs Jagpin Breweries Ltd & Another on 14 January, 2009

M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd & Anr vs M/S L'Oreal India Private Limited & Anr on 14 November, 2022

16. In view of the discussion above in my opinion the use of the expression by the defendant 'LOW ABSORB' or 'LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY' cannot be injuncted at this stage, since they are descriptive of the character or the quality of the defendant's goods unlike a trade mark which identifies the origin. This defence is available even against registered mark under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act. In the very least, this defence cannot be ruled out at the interlocutory stage. The use by the defendant cannot be said to be not bona fide since not only does it contain the additive which reduces oil absorption by food stuffs during the process of frying but the PFA Rules also recognize such an eventuality.............." 10.3 A similar view has been expressed by another Single Judge of this Court in the case of Lowenbrau AG v. Jagpin Breweries Limited, 157 (2009) DLT 791.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

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

49. Reliance was placed by the Defendants on the judgment in Lowenbrau AG & Anr. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd. & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 45, to set up a case of honest and concurrent user. In the said judgment, this Court held that concurrent and honest use is a valid defence against action for infringement under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and even Sections 9(1), 30(1), 30(2) and 35 of the Act recognizes honest and concurrent use, and on the conditions mentioned therein being satisfied, valid defence can be raised against infringement. This judgment also does not inure to the advantage of the Defendants since this Court has rendered a prima facie finding that the adoption of the impugned mark is dishonest and the attempt to adopt and use the trademark of the Plaintiffs, which has a repute of the threshold required under Section 29(4) of the Act, is only to gain advantage and mileage from the said mark. Furthermore, this defence is contradicted by the Defendants by their own argument that the reason for adoption was that Cox Distillery was established by an Englishman and when he came up with the term 'Mirinda' for Signature Not VerifiedCS(COMM) 288/2022 Page 37 of 41 Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:06.05.2023 15:26:54 Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:2945 whisky, the same was adopted by the Defendants. It is obvious that if this was the reason for adoption, mark could not have been coined by the said entity in 2007.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Paul Components Private Limited vs Hi Tech Arai Private Limited on 9 August, 2023

31. In a case where the plaintiff has obtained registration of its mark improperly and the registration is ex facie objectionable, Mr. Dayan Krishnan submits that the plaintiff would not be entitled to the benefit of presumption of validity of the trademark under Section 31(1)3 of the Trademarks Act. For this purpose, he relies on para 158 of the judgment of this Bench in Armasuisse v. Trade Mark Registry4 and paras 13, 14 and 19 of the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Lowenbrau AG v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd5. Mr. Dayan Krishnan reiterates the objection, as contained in the reply filed by the defendant, of the plaint being vitiated by suppression and misstatement. He submits that the plaintiff has concealed from the Court the registration obtained for the and marks, both of which are identifiable with the defendant.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next