Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.98 seconds)
Zydus Wellness Products Limited vs Cipla Health Ltd & Anr. on 3 July, 2023 cites

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.
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 13 - M Gupta - Full Document

Goenka Institute Of Education & ... vs Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr. on 29 May, 2009

40. We may however note that when two identical trade marks are used by two parties in the market, or that a use of a descriptive word by a defendant can be confused with the trade mark of a plaintiff, then a Court is always entitled to ensure that such distinction is brought or conditions are imposed qua the two identical or deceptively similar trade marks by imposing such conditions of use on both or either of the parties so that a third vital/important stake holder in these Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disputes viz. the public, is not in any manner deceived/confused and whose rights are not prejudicially affected. This has been held by us in a recent judgment in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Diat Foods (India)58, decided on 29.9.2010, in which this Court (speaking through Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J) has relied upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Goenka Institute of Education and Research v. Anjani Kumar Goenka59, as also Section 12 of the Act and held the entitlement of a Court to issue directions to ensure that there is no confusion in the public with respect to two separate products which are sold under identical or deceptively similar trade marks. Of course, in this case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd.53 use by the respondent/defendant was not as a trade mark but only in the descriptive sense, and yet, to avoid confusion to the public, directions were issued. Similar would be the entitlement of a Court afortiorari when two parties use same or deceptively similar descriptive word marks as trade marks.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 49 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1