Search Results Page
Search Results
11 - 20 of 36 (1.47 seconds)Section 9 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Chandrakant Sahu vs Coal India Limited 47 Wa/48/2018 Indra ... on 10 December, 2019
22. Mr. Bansal further submits that the fact that the appellant has an
outlet in Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi and the respondent has an outlet in
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, is irrelevant to the aspect of infringement
and injunction and relies, for this purpose on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah8 which
advises Courts to keep in mind the fact that a party may always choose
to expand its business.
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
29. Where infringement is found to exist, normally an injunction
must follow. This is categorically held in para 5 of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd v. Sudhir
Bhatia9 which reads thus:
Amritdhara Pharmacy vs Satyadeo Gupta on 27 April, 1962
FAO (COMM) 217/2025
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 11 of 32
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026
20:07:05
himself the registered proprietor or permissive user, uses a mark
which is deceptively similar to a registered trade mark of another, for
goods or services which are identical or deceptively similar to the
goods or services in respect of which the mark of the other is
registered, and such usage results in likelihood of confusion or
likelihood of the public believing an association between the two
marks, infringement results. The "public" is represented by a
consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, as held
by the Supreme Court in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta14,
Satyam Infoway Ltd v Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd15, and several other
decisions.
Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 6 May, 2004
FAO (COMM) 217/2025
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 11 of 32
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026
20:07:05
himself the registered proprietor or permissive user, uses a mark
which is deceptively similar to a registered trade mark of another, for
goods or services which are identical or deceptively similar to the
goods or services in respect of which the mark of the other is
registered, and such usage results in likelihood of confusion or
likelihood of the public believing an association between the two
marks, infringement results. The "public" is represented by a
consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, as held
by the Supreme Court in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta14,
Satyam Infoway Ltd v Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd15, and several other
decisions.
Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt. ... on 6 July, 2015
(c) its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or
services covered by such registered trade mark,
is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an
association with the registered trade mark.
14 AIR 1963 SC 449
15 (2004) 6 SCC 145
16 Refer Pernod Record India Ltd v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701
17 Refer Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd v Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt Ltd, 221 (2015) DLT 359
(DB)
Signature Not Verified
FAO (COMM) 217/2025
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 12 of 32
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026
20:07:05
would be of confusion or association. The fact that, later, this
impression might be dispelled, does not mitigate the aspect of
infringement.
M/S. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr. on 13 October, 2014
45. In the present case, the appellant's registered trademarks are
CHACHA SAREE BAZAR and CHACHE DI HATTI. Both are
registered as word and device mark in Classes 24 and 25. It is clear,
therefore, that, while examining the aspect of infringement, the Court
has to compare the rival marks as whole marks, in their entirety, and
cannot compare individual parts of the marks which are not separately
registered. The manner in which composite marks which consist of
various parts are to be compared as whole marks has, however, been
clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in South India Beverages
Signature Not Verified
FAO (COMM) 217/2025
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 16 of 32
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026
20:07:05
Pvt Ltd v. General Mills Marketing Inc23. The principle in South
India Beverages stands reinforced by the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. In South India Beverages, the
Division Bench has held as under: