Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.80 seconds)Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs Diat Foods (India) on 29 September, 2010
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.
1