Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (2.75 seconds)
Documents citing Bata India Limited vs Chawla Boot House & Anr on 16 April, 2019

Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Godrej Skyline Developers Private ... on 11 September, 2019

In this context reference may be had to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Bata India Ltd. vs. Chawla Boot House & Anr.(supra). That was a case in which the plaintiff, namely, Bata India Ltd. adopted the mark „Power‟ for footwear in 1970. Defendant No. 2 moved a trade mark application for the mark „POWER FLEX‟ in respect of footwear. In those circumstances, this court held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - J Nath - Full Document

Delhivery Private Limited vs Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited on 12 October, 2020

By applying the aforesaid position of law, to the facts I say, the mark which is phonetically similar to the English word 'delivery' do not require any imagination, thought and perception, more so for delivery services. Similarly, in Bata India Limited (supra) this Court held 'POWER' could at best be termed as a suggestive mark as the same is not immediately connectable to footwear, but a laudatory epithet and such suggestive marks are held to be inherently distinctive marks. Whereas, in the case in hand, the mark 'DELHIVERY' is immediately connectable to the delivery services and cannot be termed as a suggestive mark.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 3 - V K Rao - Full Document

Phonepe Private Limited vs Ezy Services & Anr. on 15 April, 2021

Thus, in Bata India Ltd v. Chawla Boot House64, it was held that the mark 'POWER', when used in the context of footwear, was merely suggestive in nature, and not descriptive, as it was not "immediately connectable to footwear". The plea of "suggestiveness", as opposed to "descriptiveness", as advanced in Delhivery30 was, however, rejected by holding that no imagination, thought and perception, was required to connect the mark 'DELHIVERY' to delivery services provided by DPL, inter alia for the reason that the words were phonetically identical.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 10 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Frankfinn Aviation Services Private ... vs Tata Sia Airlines Ltd. on 28 October, 2022

In Bata India Limited v. Chawla Boot House and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8147, the Court while holding that the mark 'POWER' could be termed as a 'suggestive' mark for footwear, which would make it an inherently distinctive mark and therefore, its use in combination with other words or in an isolated manner in respect of footwear, clothing etc. violates the statutory and common law rights of the Plaintiff, permitted Defendant No. 2 therein to use the tagline 'THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER' with a rider that no undue prominence shall be given to the word 'POWER'.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

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

In Bata India Limited (supra), the Court held that POWER could at best be termed as a suggestive mark for footwear which would make it inherently distinctive. Even if one considers the nature of the mark, it does not direct anyone immediately to shoes or to footwear and imagination could at best lead to products related to electricity, batteries etc. and it cannot therefore be termed as a descriptive mark. Quite contrary, in the facts of the present case the use of the expression 'HAIR SPA' would immediately direct a person with average intelligence and prudent mind to a treatment pertaining to hair and the descriptive nature of the mark can hardly be disputed.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

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

43. Reliance has been correctly placed by the Plaintiff on the judgment in Bata India Limited v. Chawla Boot House, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8147, where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the word 'POWER' could not be immediately connected to shoes (footwear) and applying the competitor's need test, is an arbitrary mark. Applying the 'imagination test' as well as the 'competitor's need test', by no stretch of imagination can it be said that ' /DHOLA MAARU' has a connection or co-relation with the product in question i.e. country liquor. The expression ' '/DHOLA MAARU is 'arbitrary' qua the product and therefore entitled to high degree of protection.
Delhi High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Axpert Enterprise vs Maulik Navinvhandra Patel on 23 December, 2022

By applying the aforesaid position of law, to the facts I say, the mark which is phonetically similar to the English word 'delivery' do not require any imagination, thought and perception, more so for delivery services. Similarly, in Bata India Limited (supra) this Court held 'POWER' could at best be termed as a suggestive mark as the same is not immediately connectable to footwear, but a laudatory epithet and such suggestive marks are held to be inherently distinctive marks. Whereas, in the case in hand, the mark 'DELHIVERY' is immediately connectable to the delivery services and cannot be termed as a suggestive mark.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document
1   2 3 Next