Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)
Moroccanoil Israel Limited Anr. vs Modicare Limited on 18 November, 2022 cites

T.V. Venogopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr on 3 March, 2011

24. To show the long and continuous use of the mark, the plaintiffs have placed, in sealed cover, sales figures of their products and the expenditure for promotion in the past years. The said sealed cover was opened in the presence of learned counsels for the parties on 28th October, 2022 which shows that the sales figures of the plaintiff are phenomenal, thereby showing that the plaintiff‟s product have attained goodwill by its long and continuous use. Applying the tests laid down, even though "Moroccan" and "Oil" are two distinct words having their independent meaning but the plaintiff having Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR BHATT CS (COMM) 52/2019 Page 17 of 31 Signing Date:19.11.2022 17:51:10 Neutral Citation No.2022/DHC/004949 coined the combination of two words "MOROCCANOIL" which word has attained goodwill by its long and continuous use, the mark of the plaintiff deserves protection. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case cited as (2011) 4 SCC 85 T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd., held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 74 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Madhubhan Holiday Inn vs Holiday Inn Inc. on 9 August, 2002

27. An uncanny similarity between the defendant‟s mark and that of the plaintiffs‟, which is sufficient to show that there was a dishonest adoption of the mark on the part of the defendant as in the present case, was held to be deceptive and liable to be injuncted by this court in 2002 SCC OnLine Del 864 Madhubhan Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inn Inc., wherein it was held:
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 11 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969

In Ruston Hornsby v. Zamindara Engineering, PTC (Suppl) (1) 175 SC, the Supreme Court deprecated the defendant's adoption of plaintiff's trademark ‗RUSTON' by adding word ‗INDIA' to its mark and held that mere addition of the word ‗INDIA' could not be held to be a distinguishing factor as the said word had no trademark value or signification."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 289 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Patel Field Marshal Agencies And Anr. vs P.M Diesels Ltd. And Ors. on 29 November, 2017

In the present case, applications for rectification of trademark were filed by the defendant on 01st August, 2019 before IPAB i.e. after the suit was instituted, and in terms of Section 124 and judgment in Patel Field Marshal (supra), the defendant was required to seek framing of the issue from the court where the suit is pending, for challenging the validity of the trademark. Although as per section 31 of the TM Act, registration is a prima facie evidence of the validity of trade mark, however, there is no limitation on the right of the defendant to challenge the validity of a trademark, otherwise, Section 124 of the Act would become a dead letter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 70 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Moroccanoil Israel Limited vs Manoj Khanna & Ors on 19 December, 2014

9. It was further contended that if the defendant‟s intention was to use the impugned mark in a descriptive manner the same could have been used as "Argan Oil from Morocco" of "Argan Oil of Morocco". Further, descriptive words are not used in a stylized manner and they usually appear in smaller text and are not distinctively used. It was submitted that all three products of defendants, i.e. shampoo, conditioner and hair oil are identical to that of the plaintiffs‟ products. Further, the plaintiff had brought on record certain actual instances of confusion among the customers while purchasing the defendant‟s products they criticized the plaintiff via email and reviews on Amazon. Reliance was placed on the decisions in 1977 SCC OnLine Del 121 M/s Jugmug Electric & Radio Co. vs. M/s Telerad Pvt. Ltd., 2002 SCC OnLine Del 605 Living Media India Limited v. Jitender V Jain, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8252 Anil Verma vs. RK Jewellers SK Group & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 85 T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd., 2003 SCC OnLine Del Geepee Ceval Proteins and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Saroj Oil Industry, 2014 OnLine Del 7723 Moroccanoil Israel Ltd. v. Dr. Manoj Khanna & Ors., 2002 SCC OnLine Del 864 Madhubhan Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inn Inc., (2011) 4 SCC 85 T.V.Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2237 Timken Co. v. Timken Services Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 27 PTC 478 Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., and 2007 (34) PTC 370 Del.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - M Singh - Full Document
1