Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. ... vs Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. on 1 July, 2014

M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt. ... vs Govind Yadav & Anr on 31 January, 2019

In M/s Bhatia Plastics v. M/s Peacock Industries Ltd. (supra) the Court was dealing with marks „Peacock‟ and „Mayur‟ which were held to be deceptively similar being the CS(COMM) 819/2018 Page 4 of 8 translation of the name of bird and likely to create confusion. The aforesaid judgments do not help the plaintiff in any manner. It is well settled that judicial precedent cannot be followed as a statute and has to be applied with reference to the facts of the case involved in it. The ratio of any decision has to be understood in the background of the facts of that case. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. It has to be remembered that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The ratio of one case cannot be mechanically applied to another case without regard to the factual situation and circumstances of the two cases.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - J R Midha - Full Document

Gurnam Singh vs G.I. Cosmetics on 12 November, 2018

14. From a bare perusal of the danglers aforesaid, an attempt by the defendant, to ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff, by making the consumers of the goods of the plaintiff, under deception, buy the goods of the defendant, is evident. The consumers, in the habit of and / or used to buying the goods of the plaintiff, identifying them on the danglers aforesaid hung in the shops selling the said goods, owing to similarity in the danglers of the defendant with the danglers of the plaintiff, are likely to ask for and buy the goods of the defendant, without noticing the trade mark 'VALENFINE' written in font size hardly visible from a distance of 4 to 5 feet at which such danglers are normally hung in the shops. Such consumers, considering the other similarities in the two set of danglers and the size and shape of the product therein, are also unlikely to distinguish between the two from the difference in the word preceding the word 'HEAVEN', i.e. 'BLUE' in the mark of the plaintiff and 'MISS' in the mark of the defendant. Even otherwise, the word 'HEAVEN' is found to be the dominant part of the mark of the plaintiff, by which the consumers thereof are likely to remember / recall the product of the plaintiff. The tests in this regard are discussed in Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 211 DLT 346 affirmed by the Division Bench in Shree Nath CS(COMM) No.827/2018 Page 6 of 10 Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. 221 (2015) 221 DLT 359 and in Prathiba M. Singh Vs. Singh and Associates 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1982, Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 234 DLT 331 (DB) and The Gillette Company LLC Vs. Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 251 DLT 530 and need to burden this order with details thereof is not felt.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Bacardi And Company Limited vs Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors. on 12 November, 2021

37. Supplementing the submission of Mr. Mehta, Mr. Bakhru, responding to the reliance, of Mr. Sarkar, on the fact that the defendants' products were non-alcoholic whereas the plaintiff's were alcoholic, relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Allied Blenders and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd.12, to contend that, in fact, the chance of confusion was greater in the case of alcoholic beverages, as they are not widely advertised. The distinction sought to be drawn by Mr. Sarkar, therefore, according to Mr. Bakhru, would operate against the case sought to be canvassed by him, rather than in his favour.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Hamdard National Foundation (India) & ... vs Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited on 6 January, 2022

Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) v. Hans Raj, 1973 SCC OnLine Del 162; Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) v. Prem General Stores [Order dt. 05th August, 1988 in Suit No. 1144/1988]; Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) v. Aggarwal Ayurvedic Sansthan and Ors. [Order dt. 12th December, 1989 in Suit No. 1477/1989]; Hamdard National Foundation v. Hussain Dalal [Order dt. 13th August, 2014 in CS(OS) 1225/2013]; Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73; Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90; Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744; Novartis AG v. Crest Pharma (P) Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4390; Suresh Kumar Jain v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 12; Raj Kumar Prasad v. Abbott Healthcare (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7708; Mex Switchgears (P) Ltd. v. Max Switchgears (P) Ltd., (2014) 8 HCC (Del) 347; Allied Blenders & Distillers (P) Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor (P) Ltd., (2014) 7 HCC (Del) 483; and Insecticides (India) Limited v. Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9748 to submit that the plaintiffs have established a case for interim protection.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - A Menon - Full Document

V Guard Industries Ltd vs Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals ... on 12 May, 2022

28. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. v. Sahrudya Health Care Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 262 DLT 59 reiterated and emphasised the principles propounded in Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 211 DLT 346 and Ramdev Food Products Ltd. (supra) that the test for infringement of a label/word mark is a test of prominent word of the mark and thus, adoption by a Defendant of a prominent word in the label/device mark of the Plaintiff in a given case, amounts to infringement.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 6 - J Singh - Full Document

Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt. ... vs Snj Distillers Private Limited & Anr. on 19 April, 2023

In Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench held that where the marks 'Officer's Choice' and 'Collector's Choice' are deceptively similar, the impact of different trade dress is highly unlikely to rule out consumer confusion between two products which are identical and have a common trade channel, especially since consumers expect manufacturers of alcoholic beverages to churn out variants. The case of the Plaintiff strengthens from the declaration of the mark 'Officer's Choice' as a well-known mark which signifies special qualities and stellar reputation so as to transcend the goods and services for which it is registered.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt ... vs Prag Distillery Pvt Ltd & Anr on 6 January, 2017

31. The reliance placed on behalf of the plaintiff on the decision in the case of M/s Allied Blenders & Distillers (supra) is also misplaced as in that case, the Court had noted the stand of the defendant that it was not opposing the territorial jurisdiction of this Court except to show malafides of the plaintiff and in view of the aforesaid stand, the Court had specifically noted that it was not considering the objection to territorial jurisdiction of the Court for the relief claimed of injunction and passing off, thus, the issue as to territorial jurisdiction, was not agitated in that case.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 19 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Allied Blenders @ Distillers Private ... vs Hermes Distillery Private Limited on 15 January, 2024

48. The Plaintiff places reliance upon Allied Blenders II (supra) and Allied Blenders IV (supra), in which the Court recognized the unique features of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 274/2021 Page 34 of 43 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:16.01.2024 14:21:00 Plaintiff's alcoholic products, particularly at the point of sale within a specific consumer segment. Regarding the Defendant's argument emphasizing the dissimilarities between rival marks ought not to be ignored, the law is well settled.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Gurnam Singh, Trading As M/S G.C. ... vs Deepak Arora, Trading As Ms Heena ... on 21 October, 2024

14. From a bare perusal of the danglers aforesaid, an attempt by the defendant, to ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff, by making the consumers of the goods of the plaintiff, under deception, buy the goods of the defendant, is evident. The consumers, in the habit of and / or used to buying the goods of the plaintiff, identifying them on the danglers aforesaid hung in the shops selling the said goods, owing to similarity in the danglers of the defendant with the danglers of the plaintiff, are likely to ask for and buy the goods of the defendant, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU CHAUDHARY C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 2/2022 Page 7 of 11 Signing Date:28.10.2024 09:33:49 without noticing the trade mark „VALENFINE‟ written in font size hardly visible from a distance of 4 to 5 feet at which such danglers are normally hung in the shops. Such consumers, considering the other similarities in the two set of danglers and the size and shape of the product therein, are also unlikely to distinguish between the two from the difference in the word preceding the word 'HEAVEN', i.e. 'BLUE' in the mark of the plaintiff and 'MISS' in the mark of the defendant. Even otherwise, the word 'HEAVEN' is found to be the dominant part of the mark of the plaintiff, by which the consumers thereof are likely to remember / recall the product of the plaintiff. The tests in this regard are discussed in Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 211 DLT 346 affirmed by the Division Bench in Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. 221 (2015) 221 DLT 359 and in Prathiba M. Singh Vs. Singh and Associates 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1982, Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 234 DLT 331 (DB) and The Gillette Company LLC Vs. Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 251 DLT 530 and need to burden this order with details thereof is not felt.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next