Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (3.34 seconds)
Documents citing The Scotch Whiskhy Association And ... vs Pravara Sahakar Shakar Karkhana Ltd. on 18 July, 1991

Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie vs Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. on 8 January, 2019

"43. The principles of waiver and acquiescence are applicable in a case of this nature. Apart from the ordinary rule of waiver of a right expressly provided for in a case of passing off, the court has consistently been noticing the development of law in this field. The principles in that behalf were laid down by way of provender in Scotch Whisky Assn. v. Pravara Sahakar Shakar Karkhana Ltd. [AIR 1992 Bom 294]
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - M Gupta - Full Document

Mahesh Viraram Trivedi vs Mayank Jayantilal Thakkar on 22 December, 2022

C/AO/152/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/12/2022 "43. The principles of waiver and acquiescence in a case of this nature are applicable. Apart from the ordinary rule of waiver of a right expressly provided for in a case of passing off, the court has consistently been noticing development of law in this field. The principles in that behalf were laid down by way of provender in Scotch Whiskey Association and another v. Pravara Sahakar Shakar Karkhana Ltd."
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others vs Drugs Controller General Of India & ... on 11 September, 2023

(i) misrepresentation; (ii) made by a trader in course of trade; (iii) to prospective or ultimate consumers; (iv) calculated to injure goodwill/business of another trader; and (v) causing actual damage to the business or goodwill of the trader who brings an action to Court. All ingredients are satisfied in the present case. Plaintiffs being innovator of 'Trastuzumab', market the drug under the INN Trastuzumab, which describes the active ingredient and is associated with the tested and proven safety, efficacy and quality of the drug and by misrepresenting 'VIVITRA' as 'Trastuzumab', Cadila has sought to pass off 'VIVITRA' as being of 'same description' as 'Trastuzumab' in terms of all its features such as active ingredient, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 540/2016 and CS(COMM) 1119/2016 Page 15 of 86 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:12.09.2023 20:29:25 composition, safety, efficacy and quality and amounts to extended passing off. Any deficiency in 'VIVITRA' on account of inadequate testing will dilute Plaintiffs' goodwill in 'Trastuzumab'. [Ref. Erven Warnink Besloten Vennootschap and Another v. J. Townend & Sons (HULL) Ltd. and Another, [1979] A.C. 731; B.K. Engineering Co. v. UBHI Enterprises (Regd.) & Anr., 1984 SCC OnLine Del; Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73; Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145; Genentech Inc. and Others v. Drugs Controller General Of India and Others, (2020) 13 SCC 371; Ellora Industries v. Banarsi Das Goela, 1979 SCC OnLine Del 198; and The Scotch Whisky Association and Another v. Pravara Sahakar Shakar Karkhana Ltd., 1991 SCC OnLine Bom 271].
Delhi High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

P.C. Duraiswamy vs Ayyanar And Ors. on 15 February, 2002

9. Mr. Asish Kumar Roy, learned senior advocate, appearing in support of the appeal argued that the learned District Judge erred in law and in facts in rejecting the application for temporary injunction as the learned District Judge has failed to apply proper legal tastes in determining the application for temporary injunction in the present suit. Mr. Roy, to bring home his points cited several authorities, both of the Apex Court and of various High Courts. Mr. Roy cited the decisions in the cases of Cadila Health Care Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, , the Scotch Whisky Association and Anr. v. Prauara Sahakar Sahakar Karnhana Limited, , Helpage India v. Helpage Garhwal, reported in 2001 PTC 872 (Del), Jai Prakash Gupta v. Vishal Aluminium Manufacturing Company, reported in cases and Materials on Trade Marks and Allied Laws, Volume-1 at page 759, Aravind Laboratories v. V.A. Samy Chemical Works, , K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co. and Anr., , Ruston and Homby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co., reported in 1970 Supreme Court 1649, Parle Products (p) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. Mysore, and K.R Chinnikrishnan Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co. and Anr., reported in (1964)2 MLJ 206.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S K Mukherjee - Full Document

Poddar Tyres Ltd. vs Bedrock Sales Corporation Ltd. And ... on 21 July, 1992

IDL Limited v. TTK Pharma Limited, and The Scotch Whisky Association v. Pravara Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., that, where there is prima facie, strong evidence of infringement and/or passing off delay, by itself, is not fatal. In any event, I do not think that there is delay on the part of the plaintiffs in coming to the Court. The factual circumstances enumerated earlier would show that the plaintiffs learnt about the operation of the first defendants for the first time from the letters of Gemini Cycle Stores dated 4th September, 1991. They then made enquiries and learnt about the incorporation, objects and trading activity of the first defendant-corporation and then issued their Advocate's Noticedated 18th January, 1992. The suit was filed on 24th January 1992, and ad interim relief was prayed for in this notice of motion, but was not granted. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention that there is such delay as to refuse inierim relief.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Pidilite Industries Ltd. vs S.M. Associates And Ors. on 10 February, 2003

77. Thus, the Plaintiff has established the essentials of the cause of action for passing off (Scotch Whisky Association & Anr. Vs. Pravara Shakar Kirkland Ltd., ). This is not even a case of the first Defendant using the mark in respect of different or even similar goods. The impugned mark has been used by the first Defendant in respect of the same goods. The possibility of confusion and deception is therefore inherent. Prima-facie, it appears that the first Defendant has attempted to use the reputation and goodwill attached to the Plaintiffs mark and by doing so, has infringed the Plaintiffs registered mark. Their action also amounts to passing off their business or trade as that of the Plaintiffs business or trade.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 38 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs The Scotch Whisky Association And Ors. on 25 September, 1998

20. Reliance was placed in this context on the decisions rendered in the case of Bollinger J. v. Costs Brawa Wine Company Limited, 1960 RPC 16; Vide Products v. Henry Ost, 1970 RFC 489; Erven Warnic v. Towned and Sons, 1980 RPC 131 and unreported judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Scotch Whisky Association v. Mohan Meakin Limited in Suit No. 1352 of 1986 decided on 19-11-1986; Dyer Meaking Limited v. The Scotch Whisky Association, AIR 1980 Delhi 125 and the Scotch Whisky Association v. Pravara Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Limited, .
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - R J Babu - Full Document

Khoday Distilleries Limited (Now Known ... vs The Scotch Whisky Association And ... on 27 May, 2008

The principles of waiver and acquiescence in a case of this nature are applicable. Apart from the ordinary rule of waiver of a right expressly provided for in a case of passing off, the court has consistently been noticing development of law in this field. The principles in that behalf were laid down by way of provender in Scotch Whiskey Association and another v. Pravara Sahakar Shakar Karkhana, [AIR 1992 Bom. 294].
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 83 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next