Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (3.62 seconds)
Documents citing Mittal Electronics vs Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Ors. on 9 September, 2020

Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd vs Kirit Bhadiadra Trading As Rapple ... on 4 March, 2024

Ld Counsel for the defendant had relied upon judgment reported as Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. And Ors. MANU/DE/1695/2020, to claim that competing goods are not allied and cognate. However, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the competing goods are allied and cognate in as much as they have same purpose. Furthermore, if the plea of the defendant is accepted then it would lead to an anomaly as the infringers would start using famous marks for goods that proprietors don't use, while claiming that they are prior user. I find force in the arguments of the Ld Counsel for the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kent Ro Systems Limited & Ors vs Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors on 11 March, 2026

In support, he places reliance on FDC Limited v. Docsuggest Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6381; Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishendas v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Hyderabad & Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 201; Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. v. Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd., (2007) 34 PTC 91; Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd., (2020) 83 PTC 358 and Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 183.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Also At vs Mittal Footcare India on 29 January, 2022

Ld. Counsel referred the case of Mittal Electronics v/s Sujata Home Appliances, CS (Comm)-60/2020, decided on 09.09.2020, Triumphant Institute of Management Education Pvt ltd v/s Aspiring Mind Assessment Pvt Ltd, 2014 SCC Online Del 3008, Gorbatschow Wodka v/s John Distilleries Ltd, 2011 SCC Online Bom 557 to contend the plaintiff did not mention as to when it adopted the design of this kind of slipper. Ld. Counsel stated that possibility of copying the product by the plaintiff from google search cannot be ruled out. Ld. Counsel stated that the plaintiff has sought injunction under the Trademarks Act without any registration under the Designs Act though it is a case under the Designs Act. Ld. Counsel stated that Sh. Subhash Mittal has authorized the defendant no.1 to use the tradename.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T. V. Today Network Limited vs News Laundry Media Private Limited & ... on 29 July, 2022

2013); Khushwant Singh (supra); Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466andPushp Sharma v. D.B. Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 551/2021 Page 16 of 55 Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:29.07.2022 14:38:22 Corp. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11537 were relied on. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions in Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances (P.)
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 2 - A Menon - Full Document

Preetendra Singh Aulakh vs Green Light Foods Pvt. Ltd. on 2 May, 2023

In Mittal Electronics (supra), the Court found that the goods being sold by the plaintiff and the defendant were different, with the only commonality being that of a geyser. The Court, therefore, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:02.05.2023 19:22:09 CS(COMM) 509/2020 Page 28 of 35 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2949 vacated the interim order for the goods that were not found similar to those of the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - N Chawla - Full Document

Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. vs Wipro Enterprises Private Limited on 12 July, 2023

47. Similarly, in Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2658, the Court noted that the products of the plaintiff (mixers, grinders, blenders) and the products of the defendant (water filters, water purifiers and RO systems) are different goods used for different purposes. Further, the defendant had been using the trademark in question for a long period of time. In the present case, as discussed above, the products of the plaintiffs and the defendant are used for similar purposes. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is of no assistance to the defendant.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - A Bansal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next