Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (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

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
1