Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd vs Youtube Llc & Ors. on 9 October, 2019

Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Exotic Mile on 21 January, 2020

Ltd. Vs. Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2016 SCC Online Bom 2178; Khoday Distilleries Limited Vs. Scotch Whisky Association & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2737; Power Control Appliances & Ors. Vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 448; Allied Blenders & Distilers P. Ltd. Vs. Paul P. John & Ors. 2008 (38) PTC 568 (Del); Kalindi Medicure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd. & Anr. (2006) 33 PTC 477; Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pandey Vs. Swami Narayandasji & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 11; Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2016 SCC Online Bom 2178; Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. Vs. Aksaar Enterprises 1997 (17) PTC 266 (Bom); Micolube India Ltd. Vs. Maggon Auto Centre & Anr. (2008) 150 DLT 458; Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Vs. Youtube LLC & Ors. CS(OS) 518/2019 DHC; Ram Krishan and Sons Charitable Trust Ltd. Vs. IILM Business School 209 (107) DRJ 248; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC and S. Syed Mohideen Vs. P. Sulochana Bai (2016) 2 SCC 683.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document

Frankfinn Aviation Services Private ... vs Tata Sia Airlines Ltd. on 28 October, 2022

M/s. AZ Tech (India) & Another, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7392, the Court held that the use of added matter such as source identifiers prevents the confusion and defeats any claim of passing off or misrepresentation. As on date, over 30 trademarks, incorporating the marks FLY HIGH or variants thereof are on the Register of Trade Marks, either registered or pending registrations, across various classes of goods and services, including in classes 35 and 41. Defendant has not and does not use the phrase as a trademark and since the nature of services offered by the respective parties are dissimilar, there is no likelihood of confusion or association and claim for infringement cannot be sustained under Section 29 of the Act. E. Without prejudice to the aforementioned contentions, it was urged that Plaintiff has suppressed its prosecution history for the mark 'FLY HIGH' and obtained ex parte injunction order by misrepresentation. 'FLY HIGH', registered in class 41 was allowed to proceed to registration, with a condition that it shall give no right to exclusive use of the word 'HIGH'. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. v. Youtube LLC and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10454; FAO(OS) 28/2010 Aero Club v. Timberland;
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Surjit Kaur Loety W/O Arjan Sing Loety vs State Of Punjab Chandigarh Thr Its Chief ... on 26 September, 2024

20. To rebut the contentions of the counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the judgment of Delhi High Court in Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Vs. YouTube LLC and others, 2019 SCC online Del 10454, wherein it was noted in para 5, regarding the cancellation of allotment of land by the High Court made to respondent No.5- Ritesh Properties and non production of any document of re-allotment in its favor. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that State has filed a wrong statement, contrary to its earlier stand, as noted by the learned 1st Appellate Court in the order, impugned herein. Necessary inquiry needs to be made.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1