Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.50 seconds)
Izuk Chemical Works vs Babu Ram Dharam Prakash on 11 May, 2007 cites

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. vs Hind Cycles Limited on 28 April, 1972

In the light of the principles laid down in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Hind Cycles Industries Ltd. 2nd (1973) I Delhi 393; K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal And Co. and Anr. Devi Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. v. Shiv Agro Chemicals Industries; and the statutory provisions of Section 29(5) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the plaintiff has a legal right to object to the infringement of even a part of its trademark which is undoubtedly distinctive.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

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

As we said in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. the question has to be approached from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. To such a man the overall structural and phonetic similarity of the two names "Amritdhara" and "Lakshmandhara" is, in our opinion, likely to deceive or cause confusion. We must consider the overall similarity of the two composite words "Amritdhara" and "Lakshmandhara". We do not think that the learned Judges of the High Court were right in saying that no Indian would mistake one for the other. An unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would not, as the High Court supposed, slot the name into its component parts and consider the etymological meaning thereof or even consider the meaning of the composite words as 'current of nectar' or 'current of Lakshman'. He would go more by the overall structural and phonetic similarity and the nature of the medicine he has previously purchased, or has been told about, or about which has otherwise learnt and which he wants to purchase.... We are aware that the admission of a mark is not to be refused, because usually stupid people, "fools or idiots", may be deceived. A critical comparison of the two names may disclose some points of the two names may disclose some points of difference but an unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would be deceived by the overall similarity of the two names Page 2022 having regard to the nature of the medicine he is looking for with a somewhat vague recollection that he had purchased a similar medicine on a previous occasion with a similar name.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 398 - Full Document

K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969

In the light of the principles laid down in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Hind Cycles Industries Ltd. 2nd (1973) I Delhi 393; K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal And Co. and Anr. Devi Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. v. Shiv Agro Chemicals Industries; and the statutory provisions of Section 29(5) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the plaintiff has a legal right to object to the infringement of even a part of its trademark which is undoubtedly distinctive.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 153 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972

21. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has placed strong reliance on the judicial pronouncement in 1997 PTC 17 134 William Grant and Sons Ltd. v. Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd.; Parle Products P. Ltd. v. J.P. and Co., Mysore in support of the submission that the label of the defendant had incorporated all essential features of the plaintiff's label deliberately and dishonestly with the intention of bringing similarity between the products of the plaintiff and defendant so as to confuse the purchasers and the consumers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 293 - Full Document

Metro Playing Card Co. vs Wazir Chand Kapoor on 29 November, 1971

24. So far as the plea of the defendant based on bonafide concurrent user is concerned, in Metro Playing Card Co. v. Wazir Chand Kapoor , it was held by the court that even in a case where the defendant was able to get a registration for a concurrent user but till the date of registration of the trademark, there can be no doubt that the plaintiff's trademark is infringed by the defendant and thereby the plaintiff's statutory rights under Section 28 of the Act are violated. Consequently, so long as the registration of the plaintiff's trademark subsists, it is not open to the defendant to violate the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

London Rubber Co. Ltd. vs Durex Products (Incorporated) And Anr. on 10 July, 1958

28. This plank of the defendant's objection is based on the statutory provisions of Sections 12 and 127 of the Trademarks Act, placing reliance on Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Durex Products (Incorporated) and Anr. and Gopal Hossiery v. The Dy. Registrar of Trademarks and Ors., it is urged that the Registrar is empowered to register more than one trademark if the same are being concurrently used.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next