M/S. Itc Limited vs Nestle India Limited on 10 June, 2020
xxii.Mount Mettur Pharmaceutical (P) Ltd. Vs.
Dr.A.Wander & Another PTC, (Suppl) (2) 714 (Mad)
(DB).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.22 seconds)Documents citing
Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. vs A. Wander on 21 July, 1976
Itc Limited vs Nestle India Limited on 10 November, 2020
In
this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Mount Mettur
Pharmaceutical (P) Ltd. vs. Dr.A.Wander and antoher [PTC (Suppl.) (2)
714 (Mad)(DB)].
E.R. Squibb & Sons Inc. vs Curewel India Limited on 11 February, 1986
(4) He also referred to the decision in the case of Stadmed Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta v. Hind Chemicals, Kanpur, Air 1965 Punjab 17;(5) Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Dr. A. Wander, and Chemical Industrial and Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. v. A. Wulfing and another,, (1979) 3 Iplr 193 (Born. HC). (7) He also referred to para 671 of Narayanan on Trade Marks and Passing-Off (Third Edition).
S.B.L. Ltd. vs Himalaya Drug Co. on 15 July, 1997
In E. R. Squibb & Sons v. Curewell India Ltd. , ASHEMIX and ASHNMC both being Schedule-H drugs for treatment of Asthma in M. M. Pharmaceuticals v. A. Wander , BUTAZOLIDIN and BUTAZONE both brands having the same drug in Geigy AG v. Chelsea Drug & Chemical Co. Ltd. (1966 RPC 64), SKIN DEW and SKIN DEEP both being toilet creams in Helena Rubinstein Ltd's Application (1960 RPC 229), were held not liable to cause deception or confusion.
Pfizer Products Inc. vs B.L. & Company And Ors., Sun ... on 10 April, 2002
59. The defendants also relied upon the
observations of the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court in the case of Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals
versus Dr.A. Wander
which reads as follows:-
Reckitt D Colman Of India Limited vs Medicross Pharmaceuticals Private ... on 21 April, 1992
Mount Metter Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Dr. A. Wander, , was also cited in support of this proposition. Lastly, Mr. Patel relied on an unreported decision of this Court (Variava, J.) in Misc.
Burroughs Wellcome (I) Ltd. vs American Home Products And Anr. on 3 October, 2001
(1) Mount Mettur Pharmaceutical (P) Ltd. v. Dr. A. Wander and Anr., 1977 IPLR 167 : PTC (Suppl)(2) 714(Mad)(DB), Asmac v. Asthmix, (2) Indo Pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceutical Ltd., AIR 1998 Madras 347 (D.B.)
Aravind Laboratories vs V. Annamalai Chettiar on 9 April, 1980
24. The decision in Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. v. Dr. A. Wander is relied upon by the learned Counsel for the defendant for the proposition that the primary tests are that the words should be judged by their look and by their sound. In this case it is held that there is no similarity in the goods by their look and that "Asthmix" and ''Asmac" are not similar in sound and are not likely to confuse any person.
Aravind Laboratories vs V.A. Samy Chemical Works on 8 July, 1986
In the case reported in Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Dr. S. A. Wander a Division Bench of this Court held that there was no similarity between the two trade marks'Asthmix' and 'Asmac' and that 'Asthmix' cannot be said to be an imitation of the trade mark 'Asmac'. In considering the above cases cited by the defendant it has to be noted that these cases arose at the time of registration of trade marks and objections were made by the interested parties at 'the time of registration of trade marks. Hence these cases cannot be applied to the present case because in the present case the plaintiff is the proprietor of the registered trade mark Eyetex when once registration had been effected the only remedy available to the defendant is to take proceeding, for rectification under the provisions of the Act. The registration in favour of plaintiff is prima facie valid till such proceedings are taken, and relief obtained Hence I have no hesitation in holding that the cases relied on by the defendant, which are the cases that arose at the time of registration of trade marks, cannot be applied to the present case, where already there is a registered trade mark and which mark is prima facie valid till it is set aside by appropriate' proceedings.
Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 19 June, 1998
In M.M. Pharmaceuticals v. A. Wander , the Division Bench, while considering the question of deceptive similarity between the trade marks 'ASTHMIX' and 'ASMAC', held that there is no similarly in the goods 'ASTHMIX' and 'ASMAC' by the look as well as in the sound. The relevant observation is as follows: