Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Cadbury India Limited And Ors. vs Neeraj Food Products on 25 May, 2007

Rb Health (Us) Llc & Anr. vs Dabur India Limited on 27 November, 2020

7.4. The submission advanced by Dabur that one of the registrations, which bears the tagline "Be 100% sure", contains a disclaimer qua the same and, therefore, had lost its legal efficacy, is flawed, as it does not prevent the I.A. Signature Not No. 6865/2020 Verified in CS (COMM) No. 319/2020 Page 8 of 25 Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:27.11.2020 21:27:39 plaintiffs from claiming common law rights. Notwithstanding the disclaimer, the plaintiffs would be entitled to sue for the tort of passing off in addition to infringement, provided other registrations bear no such disclaimer. [See: Cadbury India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Neeraj Food Products, 2007 (34) PTC 370] 7.5. The fact that there are other entities which manufacture and sell soap bars that bear the shape and configuration similar to the 2009 design and the subject design registration - does not foreclose the plaintiffs' right to seek relief as these designs do not precede the aforementioned designs owned by the plaintiffs.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 6 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Bacardi And Company Limited vs Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors. on 12 November, 2021

Ld. v. Frederick Robinson, Ld. (1946) RPC 17; Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia 2004 (28) PTC 121 (SC); Cadbury India Ltd. & Ors. v. Neeraj Food Products (2007) 35 PTC 95 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 464/2021 Page 37 of 39 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:12.11.2021 20:09:27 manufacture non-alcoholic beverages. There is no reason to believe that a connoisseur of the plaintiff's alcoholic "BREEZER" would not partake of the defendants' non-alcoholic "FREEZ mix". The triple identity test, of similarity of marks, similarity of products and availability through common sources, is also, therefore, satisfied in the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Sona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd. & Ors. on 17 April, 2023

27. Mr. Sibal has relied upon the decision of this Court in Cadbury India Limited v. Neeraj Food Products , 142 (2007) DLT 724 wherein the Court was faced with a similar allegation of alleged suppression of a disclaimer, in two of the three registrations in favour of the plaintiff therein, whereby no exclusive use of the word was conferred. This Court, nevertheless refused to non-suit the plaintiff on the basis of concealment of material facts, on the ground that the plaintiff had a third registration in respect of which there was no disclaimer.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited vs E! Entertainment Television Llc on 31 May, 2023

21. It was also submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant pleaded concealment and misrepresentation by the plaintiff in respect of the three trademark registration namely LOVCOM in class 9, LOVCOM NOW in class 16 and Romedy Now in Class 38. It was countered by the plaintiff that there are 77 registrations in class 38 and 73 registration in class 41 without any disclaimer, and just one declaimer in class 38 does not affect the proprietary right conferred in the Plaintiff in respect of "NOW" family of marks. Reliance was placed on 2007 (35) PTC 95 (Del.) Cadbury India v. Neeraj Food Products and 2012 (50) PTC 60 (Del.)
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next