Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (2.03 seconds)

Anil Verma vs R.K. Jewellers Sk Group & Ors. on 25 April, 2019

9. Without prejudice, it is contended that the mark has acquired distinctiveness under the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act. The appellant disputes the finding of descriptiveness, submitting that "ONE FOR ALL", taken as a whole, does not describe the kind, nature, quality, purpose or characteristics of books and requires a mental pause to connect it with the goods. Reliance is placed on Anil Verma v. R.K. Jewellers5and Disruptive Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks.6 4 2023:DHC:3476 5 2019:DHC:2276 Signature Not Verified 6 2022:DHC:2545.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 7 - P M Singh - Full Document

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

13. The appellant submits that the impugned judgment violates the anti-dissection rule by dissecting the mark word-by-word instead of assessing it as a whole. Reliance is placed on Grey Matters Educations Trust (supra) and Ticona Polymers, Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks.12 7 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5669 8 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 25/2021 9 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2022 10 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7390 11 CMA (TM) No. 5 of 2024 Signature Not Verified 12 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1234 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR LPA 571/2025 Page 5 of 14 Signing Date:15.02.2026 20:58
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1