Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing Bigtree Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt Ltd & Anr. on 13 December, 2017

Bigtree Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs D Sharma & Anr on 21 January, 2019

20. I agree with the judgment of this court in Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Brain Seeds Sportainment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that prefix BOOKMY is not an invented word. In fact, it is an apt description of a business that is involved, namely, booking of tickets for shows, events, films, etc. The fact as to whether this prefix BOOKMY has been accorded a secondary meaning and distinctiveness can only be established after the parties have led their evidence.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - J Nath - Full Document

N.S.Krishnamoorthy vs Afru Hearing Aid Centre on 30 October, 2019

In the judgment in Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt. Ltd. and another reported in 2018(73) PTC 115 [Del], the Delhi High Court has held that “13. Turning to the present case, plaintiff's domain www.bookmyshow.com and defendant's domain www.bookmysports.com are not the sole users of the prefix "BOOKMY". In the written statement learned counsel for the defendant has submitted several pages of domain names beginning with "BOOKMY" that have existed both before and subsequent to the plaintiff's website. This gives the first indication that the prefix is a descriptive one.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd vs Sunil Kumar Saluja on 28 January, 2022

In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra), and with which we respectfully agree, the appellant in the facts of the present case can have no exclusive ownership rights on the trade mark "LOW ABSORB". The expression "LOW ABSORB" is quite clearly a common descriptive expression/adjective. The expression "LOW ABSORB" is not a coined word and at best it is a combination of two popular English words which are descriptive of the nature of the product as held by the Division Bench in Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd & Anr vs M/S L'Oreal India Private Limited & Anr on 14 November, 2022

Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12166, wherein it was held that 'BOOKMY' is descriptive in nature and since Plaintiff's trademark 'BOOKMYSHOW' has not acquired distinctiveness, coupled with examples placed on record by the Defendant, where numerous other Companies were operating with the same domain suffix, a case for grant of injunction by the Plaintiff is not made.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Subway Ip Llc vs Infinity Food & Ors. on 12 January, 2023

17. Mr Pushkar Sood, appearing for the defendants submits, per contra that, with the changes that the defendants have volunteered to make, the allegation of infringement and passing off, levelled by the plaintiff, can no more sustain. He submits that the defendants have only two outlets, at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and at Gurgaon, and have 3 (1969) 2 SCC 727 4 (1972) 1 SCC 618 5 (2004) 3 SCC 90 6 1975 CarswellOnt 1001 7 1976 CarswellOnt 1006, 34 C.P.R. (2d) 177 8 1977 CarswellOnt 1041, 36 C.P.R. (2d) 270 9 119 (2005) DLT 99; (2005) 30 PTC 377 CS(COMM) 843/2022 Page 9 of 26 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:15.01.2023 15:16:13 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000269 already implemented these changes at both the outlets. He further submits that the defendants have even changed the wall décor of their outlets, and removed the photographs and images, on the walls, to which the plaintiff objected. The menu card and staff uniforms of his clients, too, he submits, had been changed so as not to resemble those of the plaintiff. With the change in colour scheme, the ‗S' sign of the defendant, he submits, no longer resembles the ‗S' sign of the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot, he submits, claim any exclusivity in respect of the initial ‗Sub' part of the ‗SUBWAY' mark, as ‗Sub' is generic with respect to the products in relation to which it is used. He relies on the judgement of the Supreme Court in J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India10 and of a coordinate Single Bench of this Court in Bigtree Entertainment Pvt Ltd v. Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt Ltd11.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Amarjeet Juneja vs Sahara Brush Ware on 6 March, 2023

19. It was also submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that there is no likelihood of confusion or deceptive similarity between the mark used by the plaintiff and the defendant. It was denied that same cannot be differentiated or distinguished from the other and as submitted, there can be no confusion in the mind of public with regard to the two marks. Reliance was also placed by Ld. Counsel for defendant upon SBL Limited Vs. Himalya Drug Co. MANU/DE/0311/1997 and Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Van Tibolli & Anr. vs K. Srinivas Rao & Anr. on 26 December, 2023

29. The acronym "GK", submits Ms. Tuli, is publici juris. No one can claim a monopoly over such a generic acronym. She reiterates the assertions, in the written statement, that the defendants use "GK" as an acronym as G and K are the initial letters of the names of the father and daughter of the proprietor of Defendant 1. In the rival marks "GK HAIR" and "GK WELLNESS", Ms Tuli submits that "GK" constitutes the dominant part. As there can be no monopoly over the acronym "GK", she submits that the plaintiffs really have no legitimate cause of action against the defendants. For the proposition that no monopoly can be claimed over the generic acronym "GK", Ms Tuli cites, apart from F. Hoffmann la Roche, paras 14, 25, 26, 35 and 36 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in SBL Ltd v. Himalaya Drug Co.6, paras 51 to 53, 57, 58, 65, 67, 73 and 74 of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Himalaya Drug 6 AIR 1998 Del 126 (DB) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR CS(COMM) 339/2021 Page 16 of 46 Signing Date:26.12.2023 16:15:19 Co. v. SBL Ltd7, paras 6 to 8 and 19 of the judgment of the Division Bench in Marico Ltd v. Agro Tech Foods Ltd8, paras 9 to 16 of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Bigtree Entertainment Pvt Ltd v. Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt Ltd9 and paras 5 and 11 of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd v. Modi Hitech India Ltd10 . She submits that the plaintiff has led no evidence to indicate that the acronym "GK" has acquired any secondary meaning.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Mankind Pharma Ltd. 208, Okhla ... vs Gurinder Singh, 205, Cedar Ansal ... on 2 May, 2024

6. In addressing Petitioner's objection to the Impugned registered mark, we must first note the established status and historical use of the Petitioner's "MANKIND" and the 'KIND' family of trademarks. Since its adoption in 1986, the "MANKIND" mark has been extensively used by the Petitioner, a leading pharmaceutical company, and is part of an extensive portfolio that includes over 300 related trademarks. This portfolio spans all 45 classes, emphasizing the significant market presence and value these marks have acquired, evidenced by an impressive turnover of approximately Rs. 1968 crores from products under the "KIND" family between April 2019 and 2020. Moreover, "MANKIND" has been recognised as a well-known trademark, published in the trademark Journal no. 1978 dated 14th December 2020. Thus, the strength of the mark extends beyond its primary 6 Bigtree Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt Ltd & Anr., in CS (COMM) 327/2016 P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs P.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2010) ILR 2 DEL 165 Reliance Industries Ltd. vs C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 257/2022 Page 5 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Yatra Online Limited vs Mach Conferences And Events Limited on 22 August, 2025

61. The argument of the Plaintiff that 'BookMy' has been adopted from another well-known third-party website, i.e., 'BookMyShow.com' and clubbed with the Plaintiff's Mark 'YATRA.COM' cannot be accepted as this Court in case of BigTree Entertainment (supra) has held that the words 'BOOKMY' are descriptive in nature and the trade mark 'BOOKMYSHOW' had not acquired a distinctive meaning for grant of Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1099/2024 Page 35 of 36 Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:22.08.2025 16:22:00 injunction against the use of the prefix 'BOOKMY'. Hence, the Defendant's Marks 'BookMyYatra' and 'BookMyYatra.com' do not violate any Trade Mark in 'BOOKMY' or 'YATRA' disjunctively or collectively as a whole.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next