Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (5.14 seconds)
Documents citing Zydus Wellness Products Limited vs Cipla Health Ltd & Anr. on 3 July, 2023

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited vs Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2023

For the proposition that the likelihood of confusion of association Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM CS(COMM) 744/2023 Page 14 of 52 Signing Date:16.11.2023 14:52:59 cannot be said to be reduced in view of the category of consumers targeted by the rival marks, Mr. Narula places reliance on my decision in Zydus Wellness Products Ltd v. Cipla Health Ltd15 and para 32 of my decision in Mankind Pharma Ltd v. Novakind Bio Sciences Pvt Ltd16.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Lotus Herbals Private Limited vs Dpka Universal Consumer Ventures ... on 25 January, 2024

18. Relying on the judgment of this Bench in Zydus Wellness Products Ltd v. Cipla Health Ltd1, Mr. Sibal submits that, in order to be entitled to the benefit of Section 30(2)(a)2 of the Trade Marks Act, the entire mark of the defendant has to be descriptive. Even if "Lotus" were to be treated as descriptive, he submits that "Lotus Splash" is at the best suggestive and it is in clear recognition of the fact that the defendant has proceeded to apply for registration of all its marks, except "Lotus Splash".
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Jindal Industries Private Limited vs Suncity Sheets Private Limited And Anr. on 7 March, 2024

(v) Section 35 would not apply where the defendant was using the impugned mark as a trade mark. The use would not, then, be bona fide. Reliance is placed, on this context, on paras 203 and 210 of Zydus Wellness Products Ltd v. Cipla Health Ltd14. The defendants were clearly using the mark as a trade mark, and not merely as source identifiers. Section 35 protects only honest user of one's name as a mark.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Abros Sports International Private ... vs Ashish Bansal And Ors on 2 May, 2024

30. Counsel for plaintiff further substantiated these submissions by placing reliance on Zydus Wellness Products Limited vs. Cipla Health Ltd. and Anr., 2023: DHC: 4344; Under Armour, INC vs. Aditya Birla Fashion &Retail Ltd., 2023: DHC: 002711; Foot Locker Retail INC vs. Geet Kewalani, 2023/DHC/000802; Neon Laboratories Ltd. vs. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 672; Raj Kumar Prasad vs. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., 2014: DHC: 4538; Worknest Business Centre LLP & Anr. vs. Ms. Worknests Through Sh Rajesh Goyal, 2023:DHC:2023; Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. and Ors., 2018 2 SCC 1.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Grey Swift Private Limited Through Mr. ... vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 16 April, 2025

21. In view of the aforesaid, the said mark "BharatStamp" of the appellant does not convey any connection with the goods and/ or services for which it is sought to be granted registration to anyone, much less, the average consumer. It would require a higher degree of imagination for the average consumer to come to that conclusion. The said mark "BharatStamp" of the appellant is, thus, inherently distinctive. Even though the present mark "BharatStamp" of the appellant was filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis, however, the same can acquire distinctiveness on or before it is granted registration subsequently. The same view has been expressed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Zydus Wellness Products Limited (supra), which was following an earlier decision by the Division Bench of this Court 17 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1234 Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 18/2024 Page 9 of 11 Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:16.04.2025 16:50:34 in Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited 18, wherein it has held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Foodlink F And B Holdings India Private ... vs Wow Momo Foods Private Limited on 3 August, 2023

35. On the aspect of disclaimer, Mr. Lall has cited decisions of the Supreme Court in Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd10 as well as the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Vardhman Buildtech v. Vardhman Properties Ltd11, the judgment of this Bench in Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Cipla Health Ltd12 and the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Pizza Hut International LLC v. Pizza Hut India P. Ltd13.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 Next