Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)
Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Chacha Cloth House on 12 February, 2026 cites

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 70 - S K Das - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 155 - R Pal - Full Document

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:
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 42 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Stiefel Laboratories, Inc & Anr vs Ajanta Pharma Ltd. on 1 July, 2014

"20. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer to a recent decision of this Court reported as Stiefel Laborataries v Ajanta Pharma Ltd.24 The Court whilst expounding upon the principle of 'anti-dissection' cited with approval the views of the eminent author on the subject comprised in his authoritative treatise- McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. It was observed:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 22 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna 25 Pharmaceuticals Laboratories , this Court underscored that the correct test for trademark infringement is whether, when considered in its entirety, the defendant's mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark. The Court expressly cautioned against isolating individual parts of a composite mark, as such an approach disregard how consumers actually experience and recall trademarks.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 512 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969

68. The law, on this issue, stands settled against the respondent by the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co.33 That, too, was a case of infringement. The rival marks were label marks. The judgment itself notes that the labels were completely dissimilar, when visually compared. However, each of the marks contained, as its dominant feature, the word AMBAL in the case of the plaintiff and ANDAL in the case of defendant. The Supreme Court held that, as the words AMBAL and ANDAL, which constituted the main feature of the rival marks, were phonetically similar and such as would be likely to result in confusion in the mind of the average consumer, the fact that the marks were visually dissimilar when seen as whole marks would not mitigate the possibility of infringement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 153 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1