Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Twilight Mercantiles Ltd. And Another on 7 July, 2014 cites

Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959

29. The defence that the Defendants' marks are part of a series of marks does not, as I have noted earlier noted assist them in any way. This too is a matter that has been decided by the Supreme Court, as Mr. Kamath points out, in Corn Products Refining Co. vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.6 In such a case it makes no difference whether the rival marks are registered or unregistered. If the marks in the 'series' have a common feature or a common syllable, but are owned by different persons, this will assist an applicant for a mark containing the common feature. But before an applicant can successfully register such a mark, he must prove that those marks had acquired a reputation by user in the market. In Corn Products again, the Supreme Court set out the tests for determining the likelihood of deception or causing confusion, and testing the similarity between the rival marks. The marks have to be considered has a whole. There need not be an absolute identity of the competing marks. Where the products are so connected as to make confusion or deception likely in view of similarity, the use of the competing mark will be restrained by a Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 398 - Full Document

Medley Laboratories (P) Ltd., Mumbai ... vs Alkem Laboratories Limited on 2 May, 2002

30. I must also note the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in a case concerning the present plaintiffs themselves, viz., Medley Laboratories (P) Ltd. vs. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. 7 Here again, the test applied was of "deceptive similarity", i.e., the likelihood of 6 AIR 1960 SC 142 7 2002 (25) PTC 592 (Bom)(DB) 20 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2014 23:50:24 ::: NMS-657-08.DOC deception or causing confusion. This, too, was in the contest of medicinal preparations. Our Division Bench noted, following Cadila, that in such cases Court must take special care given that confusion made have possibly catastrophic consequences. It rejected the argument that there was no likelihood of confusion only because the drugs in question were prescription drugs.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 24 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Wyeth Holdings Corporation And Anr. vs Burnet Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. on 25 January, 2008

31. The observations of a learned Single Judge of this Court 8 in Wyeth Holdings Corporation & Anr. vs. Burnet Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd.9 are of special importance as they also deal with medicinal preparations. Dr. Chandrachud, J. reviewed the case law on the subject, including Amritdhara, Cadila and other decisions. He then said:
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 14 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 21 January, 2014

35. The question of delay simpliciter and whether the plaintiff should be denied relief only on that ground has also been decided. Mr. Kamath relies on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Charak Pharma Pvt Ltd v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.12 This was a decision that contained a comprehensive review of the law, including precedents on infringement and passing of. All the authorities that I have referred to and several others in addition were fully considered. There, as in this case, a submission was made that not having obtained ad-interim relief, no interim relief ought to be granted after the lapse of seven years. Kathawala, J. held that in an infringement action, where acquiescence is not 12 2014 (57) PTC 538 (Bom); 2014 (2) All MR 732 25 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2014 23:50:24 ::: NMS-657-08.DOC established following well settled principles (as discussed earlier), mere delay is never a defence. He said:
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 8 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document
1   2 Next