Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Nestle India Limited vs Mood Hospitality Private Limited on 10 February, 2010

Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt Ltd vs Procter & Gamble Manufacturing ... on 9 May, 2014

16. However, in the present case a perusal of the impugned trade mark and the packaging of the defendants would show that the mark "ALL- AROUND PROTECTION" is being used as a standalone mark and not to describe any quality of the product. The qualities of the product are described separately on the packaging. The facts of the present case are different from the facts as contained in the judgment of Nestle India Limited v. Mood Hospitality Private Limited (supra). It cannot be said that the mark "ALLROUND PROTECTION" as used by the defendant is not being used as trade mark but as descriptive of the qualities of the product.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 9 - J Nath - Full Document

Blue Hill Logistics Private Ltd vs Ashok Leyland Limited on 5 May, 2011

In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon NESTLE INDIA LIMITED v. MOOD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED [2010 (42) PTC 514 (Del.). In the said case, Plaintiff sought for an injunction against the Defendant from using the trade mark "Yo! China". Defendant has used the word "Yo!" as part of the expressions "Masala Yo!" and "Chilly Chow Yo!". The Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that "mere use of the mark "Yo" would not bring it within the mischief of clause (c) of Section 29(4) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 24 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Piruz Khambatta & Anr. vs Soex India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 23 December, 2011

37. The decisions referred to by the defendants, i.e., Nestle India Limited v. Mood Hospitality Private Limited (supra) and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. (supra), do not help the case of the defendants. In the first case, the learned Division Bench in para 40 of the judgment has clearly come to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to establish, even prima facie, that the latter trade mark has been so continuously or extensively used that it has developed a reputation in India. In para 41, there is also finding given by the learned Division Bench that there is a plausible explanation given by the appellant, therefore, it cannot be said that the mark „Yo‟ was used without due cause and mere use of the word „Yo‟ would not bring it within the mischief of clause (c) of section 29(4).
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

M/S Bharat Biotech International Ltd. vs Optival Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 26 May, 2020

29. Mr. Sapra submitted that the defendant No.2's use of the mark 'TCV' is not in the trade mark sense as envisaged in Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, and is thus within the ambit of the law CS(COMM) 1248/2018 Page 27 of 62 under Sections 35 and 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act. An action for infringement under Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, could only be brought where the defendant uses a mark 'as a trade mark' i.e. in a manner 'indicative of trade origin' (Ref:- Nestle v Mood Hospitality, (2010 (42) PTC 14(Del), para 12). If a mark is not being used in a 'trade mark sense' but merely in a descriptive sense, it is covered in the exceptions under Section 30(2) and Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act. If a defence of use of a descriptive mark as an indication of kind, quality or characteristic of goods (under Section 35) is to succeed, the term used is required to be generic and that the use of the term be bona fide. It has been held that if a sufficiently distinctive term is used along with the descriptive term, the same would qualify as bona fide use. Thus, the presence of the word 'ZYVAC' along with the descriptive abbreviation 'TCV' in defendant No. 2's, makes the mark 'ZYVAC-TCV' sufficiently distinctive and clearly indicates the bona fide intention of the defendant No. 2.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 4 - V K Rao - Full Document

M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. ... vs Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. on 1 July, 2014

(ee) reliance was placed on S.M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Cadbury (India) Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 573 [however the senior counsel for the plaintiff objected on the ground that the same stands CS(OS) No.2589/2013 Page 22 of 49 overruled in Cadila Healthcare (supra), though the senior counsel for the defendant initially contended that only para 54 of the judgment had been overruled in Cadila Healthcare but subsequently conceded that para 35 of the said judgment also stands overruled in Cadila Healthcare but stated that the test of surrounding circumstances was upheld]; (ff) reliance was placed on Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Mood Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (42) PTC 514 (Del.)
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 9 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt. ... on 6 July, 2015

86. Since the appellant has prima-facie copied an essential feature of the respondent‟s trademark, Section 17 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 is inapplicable to this case. The appellant had also relied on the decision reported as 2010 (42) PTC 514 Del Nestle India Ltd. v. Mood Hospitality, in FAO (OS) Nos.368/2014 & 493/2014 Page 33 of 43 which it was held that the defendant therein was using the mark in question in a descriptive manner and that the plaintiff did not enjoy reputation in a part of the composite mark that was used by the defendant. Therefore, the above decision is inapplicable to the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 24 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Raymond Ltd vs Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd on 20 July, 2016

Mr. Khandekar then relied upon the observations of the Delhi High Court in Nestle India Limited (supra) and submitted that a trade mark acquires distinctiveness when, in the eyes of the public, it distinguishes the goods or services connected with the proprietor of the mark from those connected with others. He made specific reference to the observations of the Division Bench to the effect that all conditions set out in Section 29(4) must be met. In other words, all the criteria in sub-clauses of Sub-section(4) of Section 29 must be met otherwise it will not be a case of infringement. These conditions must be met cumulatively and not disjunctively. To make out a case of infringement under Section 29(4) it is not sufficient to say that the case falls within one or other clauses of Sub-section (4) but the ingredients of all clauses must be satisfied. Therefore, to be actionable a registered trade mark must have reputation in India, the Defendant must use the mark without due cause and such use must take unfair advantage or detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the mark.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 3 - A K Menon - Full Document
1   2 3 Next