Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 138 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Reckitt Benckiser India Limited on 31 January, 2014

Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. vs Jagdish Kumar & Anr. on 21 March, 2025

42. What emerges from the aforesaid analysis is that the defendants have Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 762/2023 Page 15 of 17 By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:28.03.2025 17:38:08 violated the undertaking given in the previous suit and are habitual infringers who have continued to infringe the registered marks of the plaintiff marks. Even the conduct of the plaintiff in defending the present suit shows that the defendants have no remorse. Therefore, in my view, compensatory damages alone would be inadequate to compensate the plaintiffs. Thus, applying the principles of Rookes v. Barnard (supra), as affirmed by the Division Bench in Hindustan Unilever v. Reckitt Benckiser (supra) and the Co-ordinate Bench in Whatman v. P. Mehta (supra), the present case is a fit case for awarding exemplary damages.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Bansal - Full Document

Puma Se vs Somnath Sindwani on 12 September, 2024

"37. On the issue of damages, the settled legal position has been laid down in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. (2014) 57 PTC 495 (DB), by the ld. Division Bench. In the said decision, the ld. Division Bench has clearly held that unless there are extenuating circumstances and overwhelming evidence of wrong doing, punitive damages cannot be awarded. Usually, the Court grants either notional damages or the compensatory damages."
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shriram Pistons And Rings Limited vs Anil on 21 December, 2024

36. As regards damages, the plaintiff company has claimed the damages in the sum of Rs 10,00,000/- (Rs Ten Lakh). On the issue of "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 22 of 26 ) damages, the settled legal position has been laid down in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., (2014) 57 PTC 495 (DB), by the Hon'ble Division Bench. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Division Bench has clearly held that unless there are extenuating circumstances and overwhelming evidence of wrong doing, punitive damages cannot be awarded. Usually, the Court grants either notional damages or the compensatory damages.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lifestyle Equities Cv & Anr. vs Amazon Technologies, Inc. on 25 February, 2025

113. The Plaintiffs have also claimed damages on account loss of goodwill and reputation. The claim for damages on account of dilution, tarnishment, and loss of goodwill, though significant, remains speculative and cannot be precisely computed based on the evidence presented. The Plaintiffs have sought compensation amounting to USD 5 million as compensation for the alleged diminution of goodwill and reputation resulting from the infringing activities of the Defendant. However, while damage to brand reputation is indeed be a foreseeable consequence of infringement, the Plaintiffs have not provided concrete evidence to establish the quantifiable financial impact of such dilution on their business. As recognized in Hindustan Unilever Limited (supra), damages must be grounded in provable loss, and speculative claims cannot form the basis of monetary relief. Consequently, apart from the awarded compensatory damages, no further amounts are being granted.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next