Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 679 (4.72 seconds)
Documents citing Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros vs Mr.Om Prakash on 24 May, 2023

48. Here the point is in relation to relative strength of the parties on the question of “passing off”. As discussed under Point 5, the proof of resemblance or similarity in case of passing off and infringement are different. In a passing-off action, additions, get- up or trade-dress might be relevant to enable the defendant to escape. In infringement cases, such facts do not assume relevance. [See Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories [AIR 1965 SC 980] , Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engg. Co. [(1969) 2 SCC 727 : AIR 1970 SC 1649] and Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] ]
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Itm Trust vs Educate India Society on 20 July, 2012

In that view of the matter and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navararatna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories (supra) it will be for the plaintiffs to establish that the mark used by the defendants is so nearly resembling the plaintiff's' registered trademark as is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to the services in respect of which it is registered. On visual comparison of the marks of both plaintiffs and defendants, I prima facie find that it cannot be said that the mark used by the defendants is of such a nature which can deceive or cause confusion. As held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the persons who would be deceived are the purchasers of the goods or services and it is likelihood of their being deceived would be the subject of consideration.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Vintage Distillers Limited vs Ramesh Chand Parekh on 16 November, 2022

"57. The degree of similarity between the marks concerned can be assessed from their visual, structural and phonetic similarity. Apart from the visual and phonetic similarity, factors like class of users, distinctive character of the registered trademark, imperfect recollection of the average consumer, and overall impression of the mark are considered in ascertaining similarity between two marks. The Supreme Court in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 Supreme Court 980 (1), in para 28 observed as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra on 14 August, 2025

In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories (supra), this Court underscored that the correct test for trademark infringement is whether, when considered in its entirety, the defendant’s mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark. The Court expressly cautioned against isolating individual parts of a composite mark, as such an approach disregard how consumers actually experience and recall trademarks.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naresh Kumar Nagpal vs Dofey Ventures Private Limited And Ors on 22 April, 2024

79. As far as judgement relied upon by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff i.e. Kavi Raj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navratna Pharmaceutical ( Supra) in that case plaintiff/ respondent was using trade mark :Navratna" for medicinal products since 1928 and was registered in 1944, the respondent registered the trade mark "Navratna" in 1947, whereas appellant/ defendant kept his trade mark "Navratna Kalpa: the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held that mark used by appellant/ defendant is colourable imitation of respondent/ plaintiff trade mark Navratna as CS (Comm) No. 969/20, Naresh Kumar Nagpal Vs. Dofey Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 59/63 Navratna constitute essential part. In that case Navratna was main constituent whee as in present case besides TONY defendant has used the Word Uncle and the spelling of the word TONI is also different and there is graphic of human like in defendant mark which make it quite dissimilar, as stated above customer class is also quite different as defendant product range is much higher. Therefore said judgement is not applicable to the facts of present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Glaxo Group Ltd. & Anr. vs United Biotech P. Ltd. on 25 April, 2014

Similarly, in Durga Dutt Sharma's case (supra), it was observed that "in an action for infringement, the plaintiff must, no doubt, make out that the use of the defendant's mark is likely to deceive, but where the similarity between the plaintiff's and the defendant's mark is so close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and the court reaches the conclusion that there is an limitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the plaintiff's rights are violated."
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

M/S P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S P.P. Prime Properties & Promoters ... on 3 March, 2010

19. Learned Counsel for Respondent in FAO(OS) No. 534/2009 in addition submits that in this appeal M/s L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. is not an Appellant and PPJPL does not claim to be in the business of real estate and thus is not entitled to any injunction. It is further contended that the graphical representation of the mark of Respondent is wholly dissimilar and different from that of the Appellant. The Respondent places the letters „PP‟ in reverse as its logo and places the letters „PP‟ in a hut while representing the name of its corporate entity "Prime Properties Pvt. Ltd.". The Respondent has also undertaken to use the words "PP" in their corporate name in a HUT. Reliance is placed on Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories [AIR 1965 SC 980]; Harrods Limited vs. Harrodian School Limited {[1996] RPC page 697} and Kedar Nath Gupta vs. J.K. Organisation [MANU/DE/0473/1998].
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - M Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next