Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (0.81 seconds)
Raymond Ltd vs Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd on 20 July, 2016 cites

S. Shanmugavel Nadar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 18 September, 2002

43. Mr. Khandekar submitted that there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Tulzapurkar that by virtue of the Division Bench the observations of the Single Judge in the 2006 Suit are of no avail. He submitted that in the decision of S. Shanmugavel Nadar V. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (2002) 8 SCC 361 it is held inspite of the appeal in that matter being dismissed on the ground of non joinder of the necessary party and the operative part of the order of the Division Bench stood merged in the decision of a Supreme Court, the remaining part of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to have merged and that the order of the Supreme Court in that case had not made any declaration of law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. It was further held in that case the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court would continue to remain decision of the High Court binding as a precedent on subsequent benches of co-ordinate order lesser strength but open to reconsideration by any bench of the same High Court with the coram of Judges more than two. Mr. Khandekar therefore submitted 73/115 ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:58:13 ::: *74* Raymond NMS -230.15.odt that applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the decision of a Single Judge in the 2006 suit could not be relied upon by the defendants. Mr. Khandekar then submitted that the findings recorded by the Single Judge in the first suit have the value precedent since the Division Bench had left open those aspects. He submitted that the findings of the Single Judge could be classified into four compartments; Firstly the word 'Raymond' was a subject of honest adoption by the defendant, Secondly, the use of the word 'Raymond' was not without due cause. Thirdly, on the aspect of applicability of Section 29(4) of the present case and Fourthly as to the application of Section 29 (5) to the present case. According to Mr. Khandekar the first two aspects on the word Raymond being subject matter of honest adoption by the defendant's and that the word Raymond was used not without due cause. These aspects had not merged however the other two aspects as to the applicability of section 29(4) and 29(5) stood merged. He submitted that if adoption of the mark raymond could be honest for the purpose of use by the defendant in its corporate name it could never be construed as dishonest adoption for the 74/115 ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:58:13 ::: *75* Raymond NMS -230.15.odt purposes of domain name. The findings of fact on honest adoption have not been disturbed by the Division Bench. In support of the submissions he relied upon provisions of Section 29(8) of the Act which is similar to Section 29(4).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 166 - Full Document

M/S. Kamdhenu Ispat Limited vs M/S. Kamdhenu Pickles & Spices Ind. Pvt. ... on 18 October, 2010

(supra) the Court had found that it must be shown that the Defendant's goods have been mistaken for those of the Plaintiffs and that an actual devious or malafide malicious intent is unnecessary and there must be evidence of the deception of an unwary customer. The Court observed that there must be some evidence of confusion in the absence of which it will not be possible to hold that the Defendants were guilty of passing off. Mr. Khandekar then submitted 59/115 ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:58:12 ::: *60* Raymond NMS -230.15.odt that in the case of Kamdhenu Ispat Limited (supra), the Delhi High Court held that the Defendant's use of Kamdhenu in respect of its corporate name and use of the name for their brand of pickles and they do not participate or engage in the manufacture of steel or steel products and hence, the use of 'Kamdhenu' as the corporate name of the Defendant, notwithstanding the plaintiff's registration of the word cannot ipso facto confer exclusivity. It is only if the Plaintiff use the mark in relation to goods such as pickles and condiments, etc. the Plaintiff would be entitled to injunction.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Industria De Diseno Textile Sa vs Oriental Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 19 May, 2015

In Industria De Diseno Textile SA (supra) the court rejected a contention on behalf of the Defendant that ZARA is a dictionary word and was adopted from the name of ZARAGOZA. The word 'ZARA' a well known Spanish brand was neither generic nor descriptive even in the Spanish language and the Defendants had not given any plausible explanation for the adoption of the mark 'ZARA' and it was found that the name "ZARA TAPAS BAR" was adopted by the Defendants from the mark 'ZARA' of the Plaintiffs who had already opened stores in 44 countries and therefore adoption of the word 'ZARA' by the Defendants was not honest.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - G P Mittal - Full Document

The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc vs Sharekhan Limited on 7 November, 2014

In Royal Bank of Scotland (supra) in paragraph 54 the Delhi High Court observed that a well known trade-mark can be protected even in relation to dis-similar goods used by the Defendants and to prove a case of infringement of trade-mark, the Plaintiff has to show that essential features of registered trade-mark which has been adopted by the Defendants has been taken from the Plaintiff's registered trade-mark. In order to establish infringement, the Plaintiff's mark must be registered under the Act and the Defendant's mark must be deceptively similar to the registered trade-mark and its use was likely to deceive and cause confusion. Once, it is indicated and the Court finds that the Defendant's mark is closely, visually and phonetically similar then no further proof is necessary. A reference was also made to the observations of Chagla C.J. and Bhagwati J in James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. v/s. The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. i n which the Court held that if it is found that the trade-mark of which registration is sought contains the same distinguishing or essential feature or conveys the same idea (as the prior mark), then ordinarily the Registrar would be right in refusing registration. The real 23/115 ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:58:11 ::: *24* Raymond NMS -230.15.odt question is as to how a purchaser viz. a man of ordinary intelligence would react to a particular trade-mark and what association he would form by looking at the trade-mark and how he would connect a trade-mark with the goods that he would be purchasing.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 33 - M Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next