Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.05 seconds)
Tv 18 Broadcast Limited vs Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited on 4 July, 2023 cites

Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. vs Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 19 February, 2014

In its reply to the examination report, the plaintiff stated that the two marks have to be taken as a whole and cannot be dissected. When taken as a whole, there is no similarity between the two marks. Hence, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL Signing Date:04.07.2023 CS(COMM) 279/2022 14:58:34 Page 7 of 14 plaintiff is now estopped from taking a different stand when it comes to the comparison between the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments in Raman Kwatra v. KEI Industries Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 38 and Living Media India Ltd. v. Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 815.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

M/S Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Asus Technology Pvt Ltd & Ors on 28 May, 2019

"43. We also find merit in the appellant's contention that a party, that has obtained the registration of a trademark on the basis of certain representation and assertions made before the Trade Marks Registry, would be disentitled for any equitable relief by pleading to the contrary. The learned Single Judge had referred to the decision in the case of Telecare Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. (supra) holding that after grant of registration neither the Examination Report nor the plaintiff's reply would be relevant. We are unable to agree with the said view. In that case, the Court had also reasoned that that there is no estoppel against statute. Clearly, there is no cavil with the said proposition; however, the said principle has no application in the facts of the present case. A party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration on the basis of that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar. It is settled law that a person is not permitted to approbate and reprobate. A party making contrary assertions is not entitled to any equitable relief."
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 24 - Manmohan - Full Document
1