Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 85 (1.69 seconds)

Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt Ltd vs Procter & Gamble Manufacturing ... on 9 May, 2014

17. Similarly, in Marico Limited vs. Agro Tech Foods Limited (supra), the registered trade mark was "LOSORB" and "LO-SORB". The appellant therein was also using the word "LOW ABSORB" though it was not a registered trade mark. Defendant therein was using the trade mark "Sundrop" with the expression "WITH LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY". Hence, the issue was as to whether an action of passing off would be maintainable against the defendant for use of the mark LOW ABSORB and for infringement of the mark LOSORB and LO-SORB. The Court came to the conclusion that the mark LOW ABSORB only describes the characteristics of the product i.e. edible oil and ordinarily and normally incapable of being distinctive. Hence, interim injunction as prayed for on the ground of passing off was rejected. Injunction for infringement action for LOSORB and LO-SORB was also rejected as prima facie the registration of the plaintiff‟s mark in that case was invalid and no action for infringement would lie.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 9 - J Nath - Full Document

M/S Sahkar Seeds Corporation vs M/S Dharti Seeds on 5 May, 2017

In the case of Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Company Limited and others v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited (Supra), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held in paragraph 10 (x) and has raised doubt about the validity of the decision in the case of Marico Limited (Supra) since other decisions were not considered by the learned Single Judge.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - A J Desai - Full Document

Soothe Healthcare Private Limited vs Dabur India Limited on 3 March, 2022

In my view, the present case is covered on all fours by the judgments in Marico Ltd. vs. Agro Tech Foods Ltd. (supra) and Ultratech Cement Limited Grasim Industries Limited vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited and Ors (supra). I have already held that the word „Super‟ is a descriptive and a laudatory word of the English language. Furthermore, it is common to the trade. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot have the exclusive right to use the word „Super‟ and would not to be entitled to grant of injunction in terms of Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Act. Even otherwise, the word „Super‟ is not a CS(COMM) 18/2022 Page 14 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA ARYA Signing Date:03.03.2022 12:57:08 distinctive or the essential part of the composite marks registered by the plaintiff. Therefore, in terms of Section 17(2) of the Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to grant of injunction in respect of the word „Super‟.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - A Bansal - Full Document

M/S Sahkar Seeds Corporation vs M/S Dharti Seeds on 17 April, 2017

In the case of Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Company Limited and others v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited (Supra), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held in paragraph 10 (x) and has raised doubt about the validity of the decision in the case of Marico Limited (Supra) since other decisions were not considered by the learned Single Judge.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - A J Desai - Full Document

Varamm Healthcare Private Limited vs Mgm Healthcare Private Limited on 19 February, 2024

17.In the case on hand also, the defendant has forfeited the right to file the written statement since the maximum statutory period of 120 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/18 Application Nos.2028 & 2029 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.2 of 2023 and C.S. (Comm.Div.) No.246 of 2023 days has got expired. Therefore, the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Marico Ltd. vs. Agro Tech Foods Ltd. reported in 2010 SCC Online Delhi 3806 has no bearing for the facts of the instant case.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014

56. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited (supra) has also held that since as per Section 31 the registration is only a prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, it is open to the Court to go into the question of tentative validity of the registration while considering the application for grant of injunction. Of course, the onus lies on the person who challenges the validity of the mark and he will have to establish that the registration of trade mark in favour of the proprietor thereof is prima facie or tentatively not valid.
Bombay High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 36 - M S Shah - Full Document

Shakti Bhog Foods Limited vs Parle Products Private Limited on 23 December, 2014

56. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited (supra) has also held that since as per Section 31 the registration is only a prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, it is open to the Court to go into the question of tentative validity of the registration while considering the application for grant of injunction. Of course, the onus lies on the person who challenges the validity of the mark and he will have to establish that the registration of trade mark in favour of the proprietor thereof is prima facie or tentatively not valid.
Bombay High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

M/S Rockmed Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs . M/S Nukind Healthcare & Anr. on 28 March, 2023

In Marico Ltd. Vs. Agro Tech Foods Ltd. 2011 (1) RAJ 558 (DEL), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that the expression "LOW ABSORB " is not a coined word and at best it is a combination of two popular English words which are descriptive of the nature of the product. Therefore, the injunction was not granted. This is not the situation in the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Deelux Cables India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Devendra Cables India Pvt Ltd on 15 February, 2019

Marico Limited Vs. Agro Tech Foods Limited ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; "LOSORB" o "LO-SORB" VªsMekdZ dk fookn Fkk] ftlesa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "We will now examine the issue whether the expressions "LOSORB" or "LO-SORB" have achieved a secondary meaning even if "LOW- ABSORB" may not have. On this aspect one immediately feels that it is an aspect of concern with respect to the claim of the plaintiff that if partly tweaked descriptive words and expressions of English language are claimed to be coined words, the same would result in a grave and absurd situation because a non-tweaked word being a completely descriptive word will in fact be deceptively similar to the tweaked descriptive English language word or expression of which registration is obtained. Meaning thereby that because of success in getting registered a minor modification of a descriptive word or expression of the English language, a person who gets registration can prevent a purely descriptive use of a normal word or expression as found in English language dictionary on the ground that it would be identical with or deceptively similar to a registered trademark- a position which is found in the present case. Such a position, in our opinion, cannot at all be countenanced and must be struck down with a heavy hand."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next