Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (3.21 seconds)
Zydus Wellness Products Limited vs Cipla Health Ltd & Anr. on 3 July, 2023 cites

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

Britannia Industries Ltd vs Itc Ltd & Ors. on 5 April, 2021

38. Insofar as the alleged similarity in trade dress is being cited as a basis to contend that the defendants are passing off their product as the plaintiff's, Mr. Sibal submits that, to sustain such an allegation, the 26 2021 (86) PTC 437 27 290 (2022) DLT 673 28 1994 Supp (3) SCC 215 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 22 of 140 SINGH NEGI Signing Date:03.07.2023 15:35:51 plaintiff would have to establish the existence of goodwill and reputation in the asserted trade dress. He relies, for this purpose, on paras 10, 14 to 16 and 18 of Britannia Industries Ltd v. ITC Ltd29, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. Far from there being any evidence of reputation or goodwill in the trade dress presently being used by the plaintiff, Mr. Sibal submits that there is no evidence even of commercial user of the said trade dress. The plaintiff has placed, on record, he points out, one solitary invoice. Further, the application dated 22 February 2023 (10 days prior to the filing of the present suit), filed by the plaintiff for registration of the GLUCON-D trade dress being presently used by it claims user of the trade dress since 9 February 2018. No affidavit or supporting documents, evidencing said user have, however, been filed with the application, despite the mandate of Rule 2530 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The sole invoice filed by the plaintiff does not reflect the present trade dress. There is, moreover, no submission forthcoming, from the plaintiff, that the present GLUCON-D trade dress has acquired goodwill or reputation. Mr. Sibal also took me through the documents of user filed with the present suit, which, too, he submits, do not evidence user of the present trade dress w.e.f. 2018. He submits that certain advertisements, in magazines, filed by the plaintiff at S. No. 30 of the documents filed with the plaint, do not reflect the asserted trade dress.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - C H Shankar - 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
1