Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.40 seconds)Section 10 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Mac. Laboratories Private Ltd. vs American Home Products Corporation And ... on 14 May, 1968
In this regard,
reference may usefully be made to the case of Glenwood
Laboratories, Inc. Vs. American Home Products Corp., 173 USPQ
19(1972) 455 F.Reports 2d, 1384(1972), where it was held as
under:
Section 21 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000
While we agree that in trade mark matters, it is
necessary to go into the question of comparable strength, the
decision on merits in Dyechems case (supra) does not, in our
opinion, lay down correct law and we hold accordingly.
The National Sewing Thread Co., Ltd., ... vs James Chadwick And Bros., Ltd., A ... on 9 December, 1947
(See the cases quoted in N.S.
Thread & Co. Vs. Chadwick & Bros. AIR 1948 Mad 481 which was a
passing-off action.)
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
Trade mark is essentially adopted to advertise ones
product and to make it known to the purchaser. It attempts to
portray the nature and, if possible, the quality of the product
and over a period of time the mark may become popular. It is
usually at that stage that other people are tempted to pass off
their products as that of the original owner of the mark. That
is why it is said that in a passing off action, the plaintiffs
right is against the conduct of the defendant which leads to or
is intended or calculated to lead to deception. Passing off is
said to be a species of unfair trade competition or of actionable
unfair trading by which one person, through deception, attempts
to obtain an economic benefit of the reputation which other has
established for himself in a particular trade or business. The
action is regarded as an action for deceit. (See Wander Ltd.
Vs. Antox India Pvt Ltd., 1990 Suppl. SCC 727.