Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.40 seconds)

M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk ... on 26 July, 2018

8. The registration relied upon by the opponent to show the use of the mark "JBR" for class 12 goods is limited only in respect of MOTORS PARTS", whereas, the goods of the applicant are limited to 'VEHICLE COVERS' only. It is evident from the records available before me that the goods of rival parties are different from each other, and the law is settled that proprietor of trademark cannot claim monopoly over the entire class on the basis of registration for some particular goods falling under that particular class. The Supreme Court in MIS. Nandhini Deluxe vs. Karnataka Co- Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., has held that the proprietor of a trade mark cannot enjoy monopoly over the entire class of goods particularly when he is not using the said trade mark in respect of certain goods falling under the same class.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 48 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Balkrishna Hatcheries vs Nandos International Ltd. And Anr. on 4 June, 2007

4. In British Sugar Plc. v. James Robertson & Sons Ltd. [1996] R.P.C. 281 at 294-297, relied upon in Balkrishna Hatcheries v. Nandos International Ltd. 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 449 and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v. Just Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8417, the court laid down the objective test for similarity of description of goods/services as follows:

Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs Pramod Kumar Garg. on 14 January, 2000

In accordance with the law laid down in FDC Limited (supra), when the present controversy is perceived from the commercial and business Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 23/2024 Page 13 of 14 Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:17.01.2026 18:23:54 point of view, there could be confusion in the minds of the purchasing public that the competing goods stem from the same trade source.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1