Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.47 seconds)

Iag Company Ltd. vs Triveni Glass Ltd. on 18 May, 2004

34. A Single Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Faber Castell Aktiengesellschaft v. Pikpen (P). Ltd., reported in 2003(7) Indian Law Decision 797 (Bom), has also come to the same conclusion. Reliance on this decision was placed by learned Counsel of both the sides. In Faber Castell, the plaintiffs, who were selling marker pens, alleged that the defendants had adopted an identical design in their products and the defendant's trade mark 'Textliner' was also identical, which was even arranged in the same manner as on the plaintiffs' marker pens. The plaintiffs were the proprietors of the said design registered in 1997 under the old Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' registered design. The plaintiffs also claimed injunction restraining the defendants' from passing off heir highlighters under the trade mark 'Textliner' by using the said trade mark. The learned Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' prayer for injunction against the alleged infringement of copyright, but granted the prayer for injunction in the passing off. In the instant case before us, no case of passing off was made out.
Calcutta High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - A K Ganguly - Full Document

Laboratories Griffon Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Rajiv Mukul Proprietor Of Zee ... on 13 January, 2026

35.He then also drew attention to the rulings in Cadila Healthcare, Medley Laboratories, Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft v. Pikpen (P) Ltd. 14, Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Raghunath Chemicals 15, Shalina Laboratories, Dashrath B. Rathod, Bharat Infracement, and Shoban Salim Thakur, upon which reliance was placed by the Plaintiffs, were all wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case, as the facts in each of those cases were materially different.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft And ... vs Cello Pens Pvt.Ltd. And Anr on 3 September, 2015

Faber Castell Aktiengesellschaft v. Pikpen (P.) Ltd.16 It was in relation to Faber-Castell's highlighter or text liner markers. Bobde J set out the unique features of the plaintiffs' product. After considering the various provisions of law, he granted the injunction. While doing so, he considered certain defences that have echoes in the defences taken by Mr. Kane before me. One of these defences taken before Bobde J was that the design was previously published. In that case, of course, the submission was that the design registration was liable to be cancelled. This is precisely Mr. Kane's formulation here and a statement is made that Cello has indeed filed an application for cancellation as well. That is a separate matter that will take its own 14 (2000) PTC 96 15 S.A. Bobde J., as he then was 16 2003 (27) PTC 538 (Bom) 17 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2015 23:55:53 ::: 201-NMSL1824-15-FABER-CASTELL-F.DOC course but that is not in itself a reason to deny relief on the ground of passing off if a sufficient cause has been made out. Bobde J also addressed the question of whether the plaintiffs' goods taken as a whole could be said to have nothing so distinctive about them as to uniquely identify them as goods of the plaintiffs. The two products
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - G S Patel - Full Document
1