Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 113 (1.80 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr. on 13 October, 2014

Under Armour Inc vs Anish Agarwal & Anr on 23 May, 2025

57. The question whether the appellant was estopped from claiming that ARMOUR was a distinctive part of its mark because of its stand before the Trademark Registry was required to be evaluated by considering the import of its statement before the Trademark Registry. It does not appear that any such evaluation was done. It appears that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the appellant had conceded that ARMOUR was 6 M/s South India Beverages India Private Limited v. General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953; Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2023 SCC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) (COMM) 174/2024 Page 27 of 66 By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:24.05.2025 21:19:26 not a distinctive feature of its mark. This inference does not flow from the assertion that the cited marks were not similar when viewed as a whole. It is material to note that the impugned marks were not cited and therefore, it became imperative to examine the statement made by the appellant and its content to determine its import.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Itc Limited vs Arpita Agro Products Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 8 October, 2024

In the decision reported as 2015 (61) PTC 231 South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc. this issue was addressed by a Division Bench of this 25 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5420 CS(COMM) 698/2023 Page 23 of 31 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2024 16:17:42 Court with respect to same products i.e. ice cream. The rival marks under consideration were 'HAAGEN-DAZS' and 'D'DAAZS'. Propounding the rule of anti-dissection to contend that the respondent's mark 'HAAGENDAZS' should be viewed as an indivisible whole and when viewed in its entirety, it was not deceptively similar to the impugned trademark 'D'DAAZS', the rival argument was that 'DAZS' formed a prominent part of the trademark 'HAAGEN-DAZS' and therefore warranted protection against the impugned trademark. The Division Bench then referred to various judicial decisions and opined that the rule of anti-dissection essentially mandates that where the issue is of deceptive similarity between composite marks, the commercial impression of the mark as a whole needs to be considered for the reason the jurisprudence behind the anti-dissection rule was that the combination of the terms in its entirety and not its dissected elements constitute the distinctive mark.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Under Armour, Inc. vs Anish Agarwal & Anr. on 29 May, 2024

(emphasis added) 15.4. Notably, during submissions in rejoinder counsel for plaintiff stressed that it was actually the overall comparison of the composite mark "UNDER ARMOUR" that they were pressing in their challenge to defendant's mark "AERO ARMOUR", and that "ARMOUR" being common to trade would therefore not be relevant, even though the 'anti-dissection-rule' is not consistent with the 'dominant mark rule' as per South India Beverages (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sant Nirankari Mandal(Regd) vs Nirankari Dham And Ors on 19 September, 2025

In the case of South India Beverages (supra) Hon'ble High Court observed that composite mark has led to the development of the doctrine of 'anti-dissection' and identification of the dominant mark. The court discussed the rule of 'anti-dissection' which mandates that the courts, whilst dealing with cases of trademark infringement involving composite marks, must consider the composite marks in their entirety as an indivisible whole rather than truncating or dissecting them into its component parts and make comparison with the corresponding parts of a rival mark to determine the likelihood of confusion. The raison d'être underscoring the said principle is that the commercial impression of a composite trademark on an ordinary prospective buyer is created by the mark as a whole and not by its component parts. While a mark is to be considered in entirety, yet it is permissible to accord more or less importance or 'dominance' to a particular portion or element of a mark in cases of composite marks. Thus, a particular element of a composite mark which enjoys greater prominence vis-à-vis other constituent elements, may be termed as a 'dominant mark'. It was observed that dominant features are significant because they attract attention and consumers are more likely to remember and rely on them for purposes of identification of the product. Usually, the dominant portion of a mark is that which has the greater strength or carries more weight.
Delhi District Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dolphin Mart Private Limited vs Avenue Supermarts Limited & Anr. on 21 August, 2023

In M/s. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench has held that dominant features are significant because they attract attention and consumers are more likely to remember them for identification of the product and therefore, the dominant part of the mark is that which has greater strength. Descriptive or generic components having little or no source identifying significance are generally less significant in analysis. Seen in this light, 'd mart' cannot be held to be the dominant part of Plaintiff's trademarks, entitling it to protection. What appears distinctive/dominant in the mark is the alphabet 'd' which cannot be given protection and as far as the word 'mart' is concerned, in English language it plainly means market and is generic and common to trade. Several entities are commonly known to use the word 'mart' such as JioMart, DailliMart, V-Mart etc. for retail stores. Therefore, intrinsically and inherently, it is difficult to say that 'mart' or its combination 'd mart' are strong marks entitled to protection in the absence of secondary evidence, which would be a matter of trial. It is also important to mention here that if Plaintiff would have sought registration in the word 'd mart' perhaps it may not have succeeded in getting registration and conscious of this fact while applying for registration of the composite mark. It is also to be noted that with respect to Plaintiff's registration of the trademark in Class 25, in response to the First Examination Report, Plaintiff had stated 'the subject mark DOLPHIN's d mart is a composite logo mark and the same taken as a whole can be easily differentiated from the cited Signature Not VerifiedCS(COMM) 177/2017 Pag e 28 of 38 Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:23.08.2023 20:08:01 mark', in order to differentiate its mark from the cited mark. Therefore, Plaintiff is estopped from asserting a right on the word 'd mart'.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd vs J.B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd ... on 26 September, 2024

44. Lastly, reliance of the defendants upon Sun Pharmaceuticals Lab (supra) is misplaced since it is relating to a suit for passing off against a prior registered trademark; South India Beverages (supra) is misplaced since there are no dominant feature involved herein; Schering Corp. (supra) is misplaced since marks involved were pertaining to a salt; Aviat Chemicals (supra) is misplaced since the marks involved were launched in the very same month; F. Hoffman-la Roche (supra) is misplaced since it is based on the first syllable test.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Royal County Of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd & ... vs Lifestyle Equities C V & Ors on 28 August, 2023

In South India Beverages India Private Limited v. General Mills Marketing Inc: 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953, the Division Bench of this Court had explained the 'anti-dissection rule' in some detail. The Court reiterated that "conflicting composite marks are to be compared by looking at them as a whole, rather than breaking the marks up into their components parts for comparison". However, the Court had also observed that "while a mark is to be considered in entirety, yet it is impermissible to accord more or less importance or 'dominance' to a particular portion or element of a mark in cases of composite marks".
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Venus Worldwide Entertainment Private ... vs Popular Entertainment Network (Pen) ... on 17 August, 2023

In South India Beverages India Private Limited v. General Mills Marketing Inc, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953, the Division Bench of this Court had explained the 'anti-dissection rule' in some detail. The Court reiterated that "conflicting composite marks are to be compared by looking at them as a whole, rather than breaking the marks up into their components parts for comparison". However, the Court had also observed that "while a mark is to be considered in entirety, yet it is impermissible to accord more or less importance or 'dominance' to a particular portion or element of a mark in cases of composite marks".
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next