Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)
M/S.Orchid Chemicals vs M/S.United Biotech Pvt. Ltd on 25 November, 2008 cites

Dabur India Ltd vs K.R. Industries on 16 May, 2008

21. The respondent has relied upon the judgement in Dabur India Vs. K.R. Industries (2008 (37) PTC 332, to oppose the combining of causes of action. It must be noted that the Apex Court was considering the question of combining the causes of action relating to two different acts viz., 1957 and 1958 The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. The territorial jurisdiction conferred upon the Court in terms of the Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall also be made applicable to a suit or proceedings under Act, 1957. However, in Act, 1957 in terms of Sub Section 2 of Section 62, an additional forum is also provided to file a suit at different places, where the Copy Right is violated and when such similar provision was not made in Act, 1958, the Apex Court held that combining the causes of action impermissible. Under such circumstances, the said judgement cannot be pressed into service on the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 59 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Johann A. Wulfing vs Chemical Industrial & Pharmaceutical ... on 6 December, 1983

It is also held in M/s.Johann A. Wulfing Vs. Chemical Industrial and Pharmaceutical Laboratories Limited & another Vs. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Limited & another reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 137 that the marks are different and not similar medicines considering the prefix. In the present case, competing trade marks 'Mexate' and 'Zexate' have different and distinguished prefix, one having syllable 'M' and the other having 'Z'. There is possibility of 'Mexate' being pronounced and/or read as'zexate' under any circumstances. As has been settled, while acertaining two rival marks, as to whether they are deceptively similar or not, it is not permissible to dissect the words of the two marks. It is also held that the meticulous comparison of words, letter by letter and syllable by syllable, is not necessary and phonetic or visual similarity of the marks must be considered.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. And Anr. vs Orchid Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals ... on 16 May, 2006

34. As far as prior user is concerned, going by the averments made in the plaint , affidavits and counter affidavits, the plaintiff is the prior user of the trade mark ORZID. However, the question as to whether both the trade marks ORZID and FORZID are phonetically similar to each other, we may usefully refer the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Astrazeneca UK Limited and another vs. Orchid Chemicals and pharmaceuticals, 2006 (32) PTC 733 (Del.) appellants themselves successfully defended that in an action initiated by a UK Company that the marks MERONEM and MEROMER are not similar and the word MERO is taken from the basis drug MEROPENEM and composition are same. The Delhi High Court was found that MERO was generic and therefore, the word MERONEM and MEROMER are not similar.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 71 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next