Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
Mankind Prime Labs Private Limited vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 16 April, 2025 cites

Disposafe Health And Life Care Ltd & Anr. vs Rajiv Nath & Anr. on 31 October, 2018

10. As per learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Examiner failed to appreciate that even if the individual components of the said mark "CROSSRELIEF" of the appellant are generic, their combination can result in distinctive composite mark as applied for by the appellant, as it has its own commercial identity capable of distinguishing appellant's goods from others. Relying upon Disposafe Health & Life Limited & Ors. v. Rajiv Nath 3 1994 Supp (3) SCC 215 4 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 414 Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 7/2024 Page 4 of 10 Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:16.04.2025 16:50:34 &Anr.5, and citing marks such as 'Microsoft' and 'Infosys', he submitted that such portmanteau words have previously also been protected as trademarks in India.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Y Khanna - Full Document

Ticona Polymers, Inc. vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 28 February, 2023

18. Moreover, since the mark "CROSSRELIEF" of the appellant, when read/ taken as a whole, is not open to dissection. In fact, the principle of anti- dissection is now well-settled with a consistent line of judgments passed by Court(s) from time to time. Lately, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ticona Polymers, Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks 8, while dealing with similar issue has reiterated the same principle while by holding as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Sidhant Kapur vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 2 August, 2022

11. He further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the registrability of a trademark must be assessed as a whole, in its entirety and without dissecting it. Also, as per learned counsel there exist discernible differences between the mark "CROSSRELIEF" of the appellant and the cited mark(s) in the Examination Report, when assessed as a whole. Therefore, the refusal to register the mark "CROSSRELIEF" of the appellant on the ground that it is identical or similar with the cited mark(s) in respect of identical or similar description of goods, and that it is likely to cause confusion, is misplaced and unfounded. For this, he placed reliance upon F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd.6 and Sidhant Kapur v. The Registrar of Trade Marks7.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document
1