Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)
Laverana Gmbh & Co Kg vs Mac Personal Care Pvt Ltd & Ors on 19 February, 2015 cites

N.R. Dongre And Ors. vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr. on 21 April, 1995

(iii) N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation AIR 1995 Delhi 300 (DB): 1996 (16) PTC (Del) to contend that from prima facie evidence of advertisements in international publications and sale of products bearing the Whirlpool trademark in various geographical regions of the world and inspite of sales in India limited to the US Embassy and the US Aid Office in Delhi, injunction was issued in this case.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 59 - M J Rao - Full Document

Cadbury Uk Limited & Anr. vs Lotte India Corporation Ltd. on 24 January, 2014

50. Recently, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Cadbury U.K. Limited & Anr vs. Lotte India Corporation Ltd., reported in 2014 (57) PTC 422 (Delhi) wherein the decision of law relating to trans-border reputation has been further strengthened and has been taken to another level wherein the court has not merely relied upon the decision of Milment (supra) and Whirlpool (supra) but has also extended the principle of trans-border reputation by observing that the existence of a merchant on web pages which are of foreign origin and social media are sufficient to show the trans- border nature of reputation without having any activity in India at the relevant time. Though it is very broad extension of the concept of trans-border reputation, but it is a question of fact in each case as to how the internet documents are sufficient to show the global character of the trademark and the reputation attached to the same. The impact of the said decision which has been given very recently is yet to be seen and analyzed by the other Courts in India in the upcoming times.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 21 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004

(i) In Milment Oftho Industries & Ors. Vs. Allergan Inc 2004 (28) PTC 585 (SC), it was observed that whilst considering the possibility of likelihood of deception or confusion, in present times the Courts must also keep in mind the possibility that with the passage of time, some conflict may occur between the use of the mark by the applicant in India and the user by the overseas company. The Court must ensure that public interest is in no way imperiled. It must also be remembered that nowadays goods are widely advertised in newspapers, periodicals, magazines and other media which is available in the country. This results in a product acquiring a worldwide reputation. Thus, if a mark is associated with the worldwide reputation it would lead to an anomalous situation if an identical mark in respect of a similar goods is allowed to be sold in India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 121 - S N Variava - Full Document

Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004

".........It was observed by Romer, J. in the matter of an application brought by J.R. Parkingnon and Co. Ltd., (1946) 63 RPC 171 at page 181 that "in my judgment, the circumstances which attend the adoption of a trade mark in the first instance are of considerable importance when one comes to consider whether the use of that mark has or has not been a honest user. If the user in its inception was tainted it would be difficult in most cases to purify it subsequently". It was further noted by the learned Judge in that case that he could not regard the discreditable origin of the user as cleansed by the subsequent history."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 411 - Full Document
1   2 Next