Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.57 seconds)
Industria De Diseno Textile Sa vs Oriental Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 19 May, 2015 cites

Hearst Communications, Inc. vs Dinesh Varyani & Another on 27 April, 2009

43. Similarly, in Hearst Communications, Inc. v. Dinesh Varyani & Anr., I.A No.11760 /2013 in CS (OS) No. 1472/ 2013 Page 27 of 42 ILR (2009) 4 Del. 799, there was not only a delay of four years in taking action by the Plaintiff, but there was also no evidence of trans- border reputation. In the instant case, I have already held that adoption of the mark ZARA with the words TAPAS BAR by the Defendants was not bona fide but was fraudulent.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - S Khanna - Full Document

N.R. Dongre And Ors. vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr. on 21 April, 1995

In N.R. Dongre & Ors. v. Whirlpool Corp. & Anr., AIR 1995 Delhi 300, a Division Bench of this Court held that awareness of a trademark in respect of goods of a trader is not necessarily restricted only to the people of the country where such goods are freely available but the knowledge and awareness reaches even shores of those countries where the goods are not available. In para 15, the Division Bench held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 59 - M J Rao - Full Document

Smithkline Beecham Consumer ... vs G.D. Rathore And Ors. on 16 January, 2002

In Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare GMBH & Ors. v. GD Rathore & Ors., (2002) 25 PTC 243 (Delhi) which related to the infringement and passing off of design of toothbrushes, it was held that in the absence of any goodwill or reputation, it cannot be presumed that there is any cross-border reputation. It was held that mere publication in dental journals is not efficient evidence of reputation as such journals only provide information to a specific class of people.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 9 - S K Mahajan - Full Document

Honda Motor Company Limited vs Kewal Brothers And Anr. on 9 September, 1999

In Honda Motor Company Ltd. v. Kewal Bros. & Anr., (2002) 25 PTC 763 (Cal.) relied upon on behalf of the Defendants, there was a delay of 28 years in taking action and there was no evidence on trans-border reputation in the year 1970 when the mark was adopted. Thus, the injunction was refused on the ground of delay of 28 years as also on the plea that the adoption of the mark by the Defendants was bona fide.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993

50. I have already held above that delay of a few years in filing the suit is not very material in the circumstances of this case. I think that the Plaintiff‟s statement that it came to know about the Defendants‟ activities sometime in the year 2011 cannot be said to be a statement to non-suit the Plaintiff. I have considered the judgments in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1512 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next