Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Bda Private Limited vs John Distilleries Ltd. & Anr. on 11 July, 2008

Pernod Ricard S.A.France & Another vs Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 6 November, 2008

In the context of delay and laches and non-disclosure of material facts, the learned senior counsel for the defendants heavily relies upon a recent CS(OS) 2314/2008 Page No. 17 of 34 judgment of this Court in BDA PRIVATE LTD. vs. PAUL P. JOHN & ANR. reported in 152 (2008) DLT 405. In the said case, while rejecting the plea of passing off the defendants' product, that is, whisky under the trademark "Original Choice", alleged to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark "Officer's Choice", the learned Single Judge, after reviewing the case law on the subject, held that delay and acquiescence were major considerations in any action for passing off and it was, therefore, incumbent upon the plaintiff in the said case to have disclosed as to when it became aware of the defendants' use of the trademark "Original Choice". Had it disclosed that it was aware of the defendants' trademark for such a long time, then perhaps, it would have dented its case for seeking an interim injunction on the ground of passing off, for, the delay in approaching the Court would have come in the way of the plaintiff for the purpose of an interim injunction.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr vs Goenka Institute Of Education & ... on 24 February, 2009

In the first judgment it was a case of registration of trademark where the court held that the mark used by the defendant Shiv Shakti along with the device of Trishul and Damru, was used in the descriptive form and when it is read as a whole, there is no similarity, therefore, the said decision does not help the case of the defendant. Similarity in the second case where the two names Officers Choice and Original Choice are in dispute were held to be different. The facts of the said case were totally different as there was a suppression of facts in that case. The mark Choice was disclaimed by the plaintiff at the time of obtaining registration. The said fact was not disclosed in the plaint amongst other concealments.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - M Singh - Full Document

India Tv Independent News Service Pvt. ... vs Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. on 21 August, 2012

1987) Baxter Vs. MCA Inc, PTC 385 (Del) The Chancellor Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford , (1999) FSR 610 Pro Sieben Media AG Vs. Carlton UK Television Ltd., and 2008 (37) PTC 569 (Del) BDA Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Paul P.John & Anr., and has culled out the principles of law pertaining to fair use in the various decisions and we may only add that what has been culled out are the four well-known factors, as per statute, in the United States of America i.e. (i) the purpose and the character of the use, including whether such use is of FAO(OS) 583 & 584 OF 2011 Page 4 of 26 a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Marico Limited And Another vs Madhu Gupta on 7 April, 2010

13. Let me now deal with the judgments cited by Mr Chandra. The judgment in the case of BDA Private Limited vs Paul P. John & Anr.: 2008 (37) PTC 569(Del.) in my view is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the plaintiff had filed two suits; one in 2008, which was based on a tort of passing off and the other in 2007, after obtaining registration of its mark and thus included allegations of infringement. The Court noted the fact that the defendant's use of the mark since 1995-96 was disclosed only in the subsequent suit, and that, had it been disclosed in the earlier suit, interim injunction may not have been granted. These are the facts which are not parimateria with the facts obtaining in the present case. The case, in my view, is distinguishable.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Las Vegas Sands Corp vs Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure Pvt. ... on 2 July, 2012

21. Plaintiff has also placed reliance on BDA Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paul P. John & Anr., 2008 (37) PTC 569 (Del.), to contend that on account of delay plaintiff was not entitled to interim injunction. I CS(OS)-3/2010 Page 23 of 32 find the said judgment to be in the context of different facts, inasmuch as, Court was of the view that plaintiff had suppressed the material facts. There was undue delay in the said case in initiating legal action.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A K Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next