Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (3.10 seconds)
Documents citing Garware Polyster Limited vs 3M Company And Anr on 12 July, 2016

Emami Limited vs Hindustan Unilever Limited on 9 April, 2024

10. There is no quarrel with the proposition that a Court can even at an interlocutory stage conclude that a mark has acquired distinctiveness or a secondary meaning [Garware Polyster Limited vs 3M Company, 2016 SCC Online (Bom) 4789 and Vardhman Builtech Pvt. Ltd. vs Vardhman Properties Ltd. 2016 SCC OnLine (Del) 4738]. However, the petitioner has never registered "Handsome" on its own either as a word mark or as a device mark. The petitioner has also not marketed nor promoted nor advertised "Handsome" per se as a standalone mark.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R K Kapur - Full Document

Dr. Bawasakar Technology (Agro) ... vs Anannya Agro Products And Anr. on 16 March, 2026

66. Mr. Kanetkar further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Garware Polyester Ltd. v. 3M Company and Ors. 8 wherein it was held that there is no presumption of distinctiveness. Absent cogent material, distinctiveness is not a conclusion easily to be reached. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, Appellant/Plaintiff cannot claim that Trade Mark "GERMINATOR" is distinctive on the ground of acquisition of such mark.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document
1