Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.41 seconds)
Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. vs Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. on 26 August, 2022 cites

Schering Corporation & Ors. vs Alkem Laboratories Ltd. on 1 December, 2009

In our opinion, the judgment and the ratio laid down in Schering Corporation & Ors. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (supra), Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR FAO (COMM) 96/2022 Page 11 of 17 Signing Date:26.08.2022 15:08:23 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The appellant, in the present case, cannot be allowed to monopolize the INN 'LETROZOLE'. The mark, 'LETROZ', is not similar to the trademark 'LETERO' merely because both the parties have adopted the initial letters (SUN adopted the first six and HETERO adopted the first three) of the INN 'LETROZOLE'. It is apparent that both SUN and HETERO are using their marks, which are derived from the INN 'LETROZOLE', which is descriptive of the active ingredient of the drug, that is, 'LETROZOLE'.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 34 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dgawan & Anr. on 6 January, 1999

In Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan & Anr. (supra), the plaintiff claiming to be using the mark 'DIMMERSTAT' had sought injunction against the defendant for use of the trademark 'DIMMER DOT' being used in relation to the same product, that is, voltage auto transformers. The defendant therein claimed that the word 'DIMMER' is a generic word being associated with transformers and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled for any injunction.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 93 - Full Document

Chandrakant Sahu vs Coal India Limited 47 Wa/48/2018 Indra ... on 10 December, 2019

32. The learned counsel for SUN referred to the decisions in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and Another: (2001) SCC OnLine SC 1416; Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Anr.: (2018) SCC OnLine SC 1778; Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Sami Khatib of Mumbai, Indian inhabitant: (2011) SCC OnLine Bom 484; Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Aureate Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.: (2012) SCC OnLine Del 3940. On the strength of the said decisions, he contended that honest adoption of a trademark cannot be a defence in the case of trademark Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR FAO (COMM) 96/2022 Page 8 of 17 Signing Date:26.08.2022 15:08:23 infringement and passing off actions.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 114 - Full Document

Wockhardt Limited vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited on 12 September, 2018

32. The learned counsel for SUN referred to the decisions in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and Another: (2001) SCC OnLine SC 1416; Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Anr.: (2018) SCC OnLine SC 1778; Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Sami Khatib of Mumbai, Indian inhabitant: (2011) SCC OnLine Bom 484; Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Aureate Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.: (2012) SCC OnLine Del 3940. On the strength of the said decisions, he contended that honest adoption of a trademark cannot be a defence in the case of trademark Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR FAO (COMM) 96/2022 Page 8 of 17 Signing Date:26.08.2022 15:08:23 infringement and passing off actions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Sami Khatib Of Mumbai on 8 April, 2011

32. The learned counsel for SUN referred to the decisions in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and Another: (2001) SCC OnLine SC 1416; Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Anr.: (2018) SCC OnLine SC 1778; Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Sami Khatib of Mumbai, Indian inhabitant: (2011) SCC OnLine Bom 484; Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Aureate Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.: (2012) SCC OnLine Del 3940. On the strength of the said decisions, he contended that honest adoption of a trademark cannot be a defence in the case of trademark Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR FAO (COMM) 96/2022 Page 8 of 17 Signing Date:26.08.2022 15:08:23 infringement and passing off actions.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 34 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs Aureate Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 30 July, 2012

32. The learned counsel for SUN referred to the decisions in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and Another: (2001) SCC OnLine SC 1416; Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Anr.: (2018) SCC OnLine SC 1778; Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Sami Khatib of Mumbai, Indian inhabitant: (2011) SCC OnLine Bom 484; Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Aureate Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.: (2012) SCC OnLine Del 3940. On the strength of the said decisions, he contended that honest adoption of a trademark cannot be a defence in the case of trademark Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR FAO (COMM) 96/2022 Page 8 of 17 Signing Date:26.08.2022 15:08:23 infringement and passing off actions.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 11 - M Singh - Full Document

Panacea Biotec Ltd. vs Recon Ltd. on 24 July, 1996

In the case of Panacea Biotec Ltd. v. Recon Ltd.: 1996 SCC OnLine Del 508, the plaintiff was using the trademark 'NIMULID' and had filed a suit for injunction against the defendant for using the mark 'REMULIDE' in relation to the same medicine with the API being 'NIMESULIDE. This Court held that when the name is derived or coined from the name of the principal ingredient being used in the manufacture of the drug, no distinctiveness or exclusiveness can be claimed by the manufacturer. The said decision is applicable to the facts of this case as well; the mark 'LETROZ' is nothing but a short name of the active ingredient 'LETROZOLE'.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next