Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.48 seconds)
Documents citing Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. vs Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd. on 19 January, 2011

Educare Limited & Anr vs S.K. Sachdev & Anr on 14 November, 2014

77. Mr.Miglani, has strongly urged before this court that mere use of the word „SHRI RAM‟ by the plaintiff even for the past 25 years is not sufficient to show reputation. While relying in the case of Bhole Baba (Supra), Mr.Miglani has contended that even sales worth Rs.300 crores were not considered sufficient for an action of passing off and in this case the financial details have not been provided by the plaintiff, nor have been pleaded, thus the plaintiff cannot gain advantage either of use for the past 25 years, neither they have been able to establish goodwill, nor anything is on record, to show that the mark has become distinctive to the plaintiffs‟ school. The submissions of counsel for the defendant, in my view are without any force.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd vs Sunil Kumar Saluja on 28 January, 2022

In Bhole Baba (supra) case, injunction order was sought against selling of Ghee using trademark „Krishna‟. The word Krishna was being used by defendant with the words „Parul‟s Lord‟ preceding with word „Krishna‟. It was observed that word „Krishna‟ was used by several manufacturer in the identical goods and therefore plaintiff claim of distinctiveness and monopoly was prima facie not accurate.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Glossy Color & Paints Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs Mona Aggarwal & Ors on 9 September, 2015

20. The defendants relied upon the judgment in the case of Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Parul Food Specialties (P) Ltd., 2011 (45) PTC 217 (Del.) wherein also the defendant therein had changed the label during the pendency of the suit and even CS (OS) No.2335/2014 Page 7 of 29 when the ex-parte interim injunction order was granted, the Court had compared the new label.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

Man Mohan Sharma vs Manjit Singh on 22 December, 2016

For Subsequent orders see CM-16925-CII-2016 10 of 64 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2016 03:40:56 ::: FAO No.4739 of 2016(O&M) -11- And, yet another aspect which has been lost sight of by trial court is; that apparently the adoption and usage of the trade mark ‶ MOHAN'S ″by the defendant was/is bona fide, for it forms part of his name i.e. Man Mohan Sharma, and Section 35 of the Act prohibits the registered proprietor to cause any interference in the bona fide use of by a person of his own name. To conclude, he submits that injunction granted by the trial court is contrary to the settled principles of law, for none of the three factor, that are mandatory for granting an injunction, existed in the matter in hand. He relied upon the following decision in support of his submissions: Trinethra Super Retail Private Limited, Hyderabad represented by Company Secretary Vinod K Saraf v. Mee Trinetra Trading Private Limited, Hyderabad, Represented by Director Pilli Guru Prasad Anand, 2011(4) ALT 692: 2012(8) RCR (Civil) 2887; Goenka Institute of Education and Research v. Anjani Kumar Goenka and another, 2009(40) PTC 393: 2010(8) RCR (Civil) 1718; Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd., 2011(45) PTC 217; Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani and another, 2010 AIR (SC) 3221; Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors., 2015(4) RCR (Civil) 860; Asian Paints Limited v. Home Solutions Retail (India), 2007(35) PTC 697; Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited, 2010(43)PTC39(Del); Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. v. Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar and others, 2009(40) PTC 428; and Wander Ltd. And another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (Sup) SCC 727.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - A Palli - Full Document

M/S Suman International & Anr. vs Mahendra Gulwani & Anr. on 14 December, 2023

24. It is, thus, contended that the shape being generic, cannot be monopolised by the respondents. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited v. S.L. Vaswani & Anr : (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 142 and the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Limited v. Parul Food Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR FAO (COMM) 199/2021 Page 10 of 31 Signing Date:15.12.2023 15:39:24 Specialities (P) Ltd.: ILR (2011) DELHI 317, in support of his arguments that the party using a mark, which is common to trade, bears the risk of it being used by others.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Samvara Buildtech Private Limited & ... on 29 March, 2023

In Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 288, the Division Bench of this Court held that a registered proprietor of a mark can assert a right of Signature Not Verifiedexclusivity only to what he gets registered as a whole and this Digitally Signed by:KAMAL KUMAR CS(COMM) 189/2017 Page 13 of 30 Location: Signing Date:03.04.2023 15:29:47 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2230 registration will not give an exclusive statutory right qua a particular word of common origin or generic in nature. This issue of exclusivity to a part of a mark which is registered as a whole, becomes pronounced where the proprietor himself asserts proprietory rights over the whole mark and expressely gives up his claim/right to part of the mark, on a realization that being generic and thus inherently non- distinctive, that part of the mark will not be separately registered.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Living Media India Limited vs Zee Media Corporation Limited on 9 January, 2026

However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff has demonstrated active, continuous and substantial use of the Mark 'DUNIYADARI' since 2020 including actual broadcasting, publication and revenue generation. 7.4 The case of Bhole Baba Milk Food (supra) the mark in question was 'KRISHNA' for milk products and the Court denied an absolute monopoly on the word per se as the word 'KRISHNA' referred to a Hindu deity and is a matter of public worship. Further, Lord Krishna is traditionally and culturally associated with milk, butter and dairy products. Whereas, in the present case, the consumer must make an intellectual leap from 'Worldliness' (practical experience) to 'World News' (journalistic content).
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd vs Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private ... on 13 January, 2026

In support of his contention that the names of Hindu Gods and Deities are not capable of monopolisation, he placed reliance on the decisions in Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh 22, Freudenberg Gala Household Products Pvt. Ltd. v. GEBI Products 23, Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd. 24, S.K. Sachdeva v. Shri Educare Ltd.25, OM Logistics Ltd. v. Mahendra Pandey26, and Shree Ganesh Besan Mill v. Ganesh Grain 27.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next