Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Thomas Bear And Sons (India) Limited vs Prayag Narain on 7 March, 1940

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha vs M/S. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills on 25 February, 2009

In the case of Thomas Bear & Sons (India) Ltd. (supra), the plaintiffs were manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes and tobacco meant for smoking in pipes under a trade mark comprising of the representation of an elephant on the packets and tins in which those items were sold. These containers carried the designation "Elephant Cigarettes". The defendants were also manufacturers of chewing tobacco and carried representation of elephant on their packets and tins. The claim of passing off of the appellants/plaintiffs was rejected by the trial Court as well as the High Court of Allahabad, and the Judicial Committee also confirmed the order of the High Court, holding:-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 20 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Ceat Tyres Of India Ltd. vs Jai Industrial Services And Anr. on 21 November, 1990

Reference was also made to Thomos Bear & Sons (India) Ltd. v. Prayag Narain and anothers Air 1940 Privy Council 86, by the learned Counsel for the defendants. In the said case, the question which arose for decision was whether the smoking tobacco being manufactured under the one trade mark and chewing tobacco being manufactured under the same trade mark is likely to deceive the public or not 7 The Court held that the vital element in such a case is probability of deception and this may depend on number of matters as well as the question of similarity of the marks or of the get up. The Court held that there can obviously be no monopoly in the use of the trade mark. A manufacturer of cigarettes under an undoubted trade mark such as an animal, or any other device, cannot legally object to use of the identical marks oil, say, hats, or soap, for the simple reason that purchasers of any of the latter kinds of goods could not reasonably suppose, even if they were well acquainted with the mark as used on cigarettes, that its use on hats or soap denoted that these goods were manufactured or marketed by the cigarette manufacturer. It was also held in this case that a judge cannot properly decide except upon evidence as to the classes or kinds of goods which are protected by the appellants mark, or, to be more precise, on the question whether purchasers of chewing tobacco from the respondent in the packets and tins above described are likely to be missed into thinking that that article is manufactured or put upon the market by the appellants. So, on merits, the Court has come to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show that any such confusion could take place although both the parties were using the same trade mark in respect of their goods.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Abdul Sattar Mohmed Hussein vs Badrinarayan Bansilal And Ors. on 17 January, 1961

(Per James L. J., in Singer Manufacturing Co., v Loog, (1880) 18 Ch. D. 395 at p. 412, cited with approval by the Privy Council in the case of Thomas Bear and Sons (India) Ltd., v. Prayang Narain . Cases of use of trade marks of others may arise under varied circumstances. But when counterfeiting in respect of the same kind of goods is alleged comparison of the two designs is the test.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next