Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Teju Singh vs Shanta Devi on 27 June, 1972
In Teju Singh v. Shanta Devi, their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court have held as follows:-
M/S. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd., ... vs M/S. Kamath Atul & Co., Nellekeri, Kumta on 29 June, 1990
9. In its counter affidavit, the respondent has averred that he developed a particular skill in the brewery and that initially during 1972 he began to manufacture Fenny under the names mentioned by him and in due course, he developed a particular type of malt whisky and he also developed a particular trade mark "Officers Favourite" which is quite distinct and dissimilar from any other trade mark. This assumes importance in view of the fact that the appellant is yet to prove the assignment of the trade mark in his favour by Cruickshank and Company Ltd. In Cardia Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. Kamath Atul & Co., which is quoted by the trial Court it is stated as follows:-
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out as to what is the difference between the action for passing off and the action for infringement of trade mark. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as follows:-
Lakshminarasimhiah And Ors. vs Yalakki Gowda on 5 January, 1965
In Lakshminarasimhiah and Ors. v. Yalakki Gowda, 1965 (1) Mysore Law Journal 370, it has been held by this Court as follows:-
Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959
In Com Products v. Shangrila Food Products, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
In Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engg. Co., the Supreme Court has held that the test as to likelihood of confusion or deception arising from similarity of marks is the same both in infringement and passing off actions.
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, , the Supreme Court has held that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered and they should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. Further, the Supreme Court has held that it would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him.
Sri Gowrishankara Swamigalu vs Sri Siddhaganga Mutt on 31 March, 1989
In Gowrishankara Swamigalu v. Siddhaganga Mutt and Ors., 1989 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 548 this Court has dealt with the principles to be observed while granting an ad-interim order of injunction. It is held therein as follows:-
1