Red Bull Ag vs Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr on 6 April, 2022
In conjunction, Mr. Lall also cites paras 1,
4, 20, 21, 26 and 27 of Red Bull AG v. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt
Ltd27.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.53 seconds)Marico Limited vs Agro Tech Foods Limited on 1 November, 2010
Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & ... on 31 January, 2022
(ix) para 49 of Moonshine Technology Pvt Ltd v. Tictok Still
Games Pvt Ltd11,
Peps Industries Private Limited vs Kurlon Limited on 16 March, 2020
53. Responding to the submission of Mr. Sibal that the plaintiff
was, vis-à-vis the stand taken before the Trade Marks Registry while
applying for registration of its ―GLUCON-D‖ trademark, approbating
and reprobating, Mr. Lall submits that, even at that stage, the plaintiff
had claimed distinctiveness in respect of the mark which it was
seeking to register, i.e. GLUCON-D. The further statement that
―GLUCON-D‖ was not similar to the marks cited by the Registry as
pre-existing registered marks, he further submits, cannot disentitle the
32
295 (2022) DLT 527
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 39 of 140
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.07.2023
15:35:51
plaintiff from claiming infringement of its registered trademarks by
the use, by the defendants, of ―Gluco-D‖. The reliance, by Mr. Sibal,
on Raman Kawatra22, he further submits, is misplaced, as the
principle enunciated in para 43 of the said decision is that a party,
having taken a particular stand before the Registry, to answer the
Section 11 objection predicated on the defendant's trademark cannot,
in infringement proceedings, take a contrasting stand, vis-à-vis the
same trademark of the defendants. Inasmuch as the impugned marks
of the defendants were never cited as rival marks when the plaintiff
applied for registration of ―GLUCON-D‖ or ―GLUCON-C‖, Mr. Lall
submits that the Raman Kawatra22 principle would not apply.
1