Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.70 seconds)
Zydus Wellness Products Limited vs Cipla Health Ltd & Anr. on 3 July, 2023 cites

Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001

Manu/PH/0618/2005 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 88 of 140 SINGH NEGI Signing Date:03.07.2023 15:35:51 56.8.7 The Supreme Court has endorsed the ingredients of passing off as delineated in its earlier decision in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.50(Cadila-I) Having distilled the principles applicable to passing off, the Supreme Court has, in para 18 of the decision, returned findings on facts, after examining the rival packs. It has held the colour scheme of the two packs to be almost identical with a happy family superimposed in both, though the number of members of the family were different. In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court has held that the trade dress of the two products was such that they could easily confuse a purchaser. Additionally, it has been held that there is remarkable phonetic similarity between the marks ―Glucon-D‖ and ―Glucose-D‖ and that both are items containing glucose. Though a specific contention was advanced, before the Supreme Court, that ―Glucose‖, being a descriptive mark, could not be injuncted, the Supreme Court has not returned any finding thereon, as it has proceeded on the premise of passing off.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

Bawa Masala Company vs Gulzari Lal Lajpat Rai on 27 May, 1974

30. On the impact of disclaimers, Mr. Sibal cites the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Bawa Masala Co. v. Gulzari Lal Lajpat Rai24. At the very least, submits Mr. Sibal, the plaintiff surely cannot claim the disclaimed part of its mark to be its dominant part. If, he reiterates, the disclaimed ―C‖ and ―D‖ were to be disregarded, the remaining part of the defendants' impugned marks, i.e. ―Gluco‖ is admittedly descriptive in nature.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Phonepe Private Limited vs Ezy Services & Anr. on 15 April, 2021

34. Without prejudice, Mr. Sibal submits that, in the case of a descriptive word mark, the onus is on the plaintiff alleging passing off Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 21 of 140 SINGH NEGI Signing Date:03.07.2023 15:35:51 to prove acquisition of distinctiveness, by the asserted marks, by dint of use. That, he submits, is an aspect which is required to be relegated to trial, and on which the Court cannot conceivably return a finding at the Order XXXIX stage. He relies, for this purpose, on para 70 of the decision of this Bench in Phonepe Pvt Ltd v. Ezy Services26 and para- 30 of the decision of a coordinate Single Bench of this Court in Red Bull AG v. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd27 , as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.R. Kapoor v. Mirconix India28.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 10 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next