Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.31 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

Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972

v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd3 (ii) Kaviraj Pt Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories4 (iii) para 6 of Amrithdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta5 2 290 (2022) DLT 689 3 AIR 1960 SC 142 4 AIR 1965 SC 980 5 AIR 1963 SC 449 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 11 of 140 SINGH NEGI Signing Date:03.07.2023 15:35:51 (iv) K.R. Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co.6, (v) para 4 of Ruston & Hornsby Ltd v. Zamindara Engineering Co.7, (vi) para 4 of Parle Products (P) Ltd v. J.P. & Co.8,
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 293 - Full Document

M/S.Heinz Italia & Anr vs M/S.Dabur India Ltd on 18 May, 2007

56.8 Heinz Italia v. Dabur India Ltd48 56.8.1 The asserted mark in this case is the same as that with which we are concerned, i.e., Glucon-D, though asserted by Heinz Italia SRL (―Heinz‖, hereinafter), the original proprietor of the said trade mark and the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff. The trade mark ―Glucon-D‖ was initially registered in the name of Glaxo on 21 May 1975 and subsequently assigned to Heinz vide Assignment Deed dated 30 September 1994. Heinz claimed to have been using the trade mark Glucon-D and the distinctive packaging of the said product - which is the same as the prior packaging in the present case - from 1994 till 2002 uninterruptedly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 77 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. vs Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. on 5 December, 1997

11. The appellant has relied upon the case of Godfrey Philips 55 India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages (P) Ltd. wherein it was held that a descriptive trade mark may be entitled to protection if it has assumed a secondary meaning which identifies it with a particular product or has been from a particular source. It is also relevant to mention here the judgment of Home Solutions56 was also relied upon by the respondents, wherein it was held that the expression ‗HOMESOLUTIONS' is inherently incapable of becoming distinctive of any single person with respect of any single product 54 (2002) RPC 17 55 2005 (30) PTC 1 (SC) 56 2007 (35) PTC 697 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 93 of 140 SINGH NEGI Signing Date:03.07.2023 15:35:51 or service. It is generic and publici juris. It describes the nature of services offered. Thus, in our view, the mark „Sugar Free‟ is inherently incapable of becoming distinctive of the product of the appellant and hence the ratio of Godfrey Philips would thus not be applicable. Even if it is assumed that the mark of the appellant has become distinctive qua the artificial sweetener, however, the protection to the mark qua the product artificial sweetener cannot be extended to all the food products of any competitor in the market. We also affirm and reiterate the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the appellant's product is a sweetener/sugar substitute, and sweeteners are generally understood in their functional sense, that is, in terms of utility when added to foods and beverages. To an average consumer, a sweetener is known to exist only when added to food and beverages, and its own identity gets merged in the food and beverages to which it is added. Thus, the expression „Sugar Free‟ when used in relation to a sweetener may really describe a sweetener in the sense of its generic meaning, and what it connotes is the specific nature and characteristics of the product.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

(Emphasis supplied) 56.9.9 The Division Bench, thereafter, proceeded to deal with the aspect of infringement. At the outset, relying on N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corp57, the Division Bench held that registration was only prima facie evidence of validity of a trade mark and that the presumption in that regard was rebuttable. Thereafter, in paras 23 and 24, the Division Bench has dealt with the import of the expression ―if valid‖ as contained in Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 347 - Full Document

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private ... vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... on 13 April, 2021

60.10 Copying may neither be wholesome, nor in keeping with good trade practice, but, so long as it stops short of infringement or passing off, is not actionable at law. So long, therefore, as there is no likelihood of confusion or deception to the public, as represented by the mythical consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, copying cannot invite injunctive action. Imitation, after all, is one form of flattery. The law frowns only when the act of imitation, by the imitator, entrenches on the intellectual property right of the person imitated. It is true that, in Slazenger & Sons v. Feltham & Co.60, exhorted thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 360 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969

v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd3 (ii) Kaviraj Pt Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories4 (iii) para 6 of Amrithdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta5 2 290 (2022) DLT 689 3 AIR 1960 SC 142 4 AIR 1965 SC 980 5 AIR 1963 SC 449 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 11 of 140 SINGH NEGI Signing Date:03.07.2023 15:35:51 (iv) K.R. Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co.6, (v) para 4 of Ruston & Hornsby Ltd v. Zamindara Engineering Co.7, (vi) para 4 of Parle Products (P) Ltd v. J.P. & Co.8,
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 289 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1