Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Glaxo Group Ltd. And Anr. vs Neon Laboratories Ltd. on 3 June, 2003

Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 21 January, 2014

17. The contention of the Defendant relying upon the passage from Kerly's Law of ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:08:52 ::: KPPNair 20 NMSL 2529 of 2007 Trade Marks that the tendency of a person who is using the English language is to slur the termination of words would not be applicable in the present case. However, this cannot be accepted as an absolute rule and each case would have to be considered considering the marks. It was held by this Court in the case of Glaxo Group Ltd. & Anr. vs. Neon Laboratories Ltd. (supra) (paragraph 24) that the effect of a prefix would have to be decided depending on the nature of a product and the nature of the prefix. Despite the addition of a prefix, the Court held the marks 'Tocillin' to be deceptively similar to the mark 'Celin'.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 8 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Dharampal Premchand Limited vs Rupa Zarda Factory on 11 February, 2005

The Bombay High Court also held in the case of Glaxo Group Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Neon Laboratories Ltd. 2004(29) PTC 88 that the marks Tocillin is similar to that of the mark 'CILLIN'. If the principles laid down in the above cases are taken as guidelines, we have no option except to conclude that the impugned mark of the respondent is identical to that of the petitioner's mark, especially, considering the fact that both are in respect of the goods of same description and as such, the registration of the respondent's mark is in violation of Section 11(a) of the Act. Consequently, we have to further hold that the impugned mark of the respondent has been registered wrongly and the same cannot be allowed to continue in the Register of Trade Marks as the wrong action cannot be continued.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd vs M/S Neospark Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd on 21 March, 2015

In Glaxo Group Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Neon Laboratories Ltd. , 2004 (29) PTC 88 (Bom), the contention that plaintiffs products sold under the trade mark TROX is a veterinary drug whereas the defendants product sold under the trade marks TREX is an anti cancer drug for human consumption in an indictable form and hence there can be no confusion as far as the two products are concerned was negated by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1