Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996
43. It was then observed in para 14 of the said judgment, "....The knowl-edge and awareness of a trade mark in respect of the goods of a trader isnot necessarily restricted only to the people of the country where such goods are freely available but the knowledge and awareness of the same reaches even the shores of those countries where the goods have not been marketed. When a product is launched and hits the market in one country, the cognizance of the same is also taken by the people in other countries almost at the same time by getting acquainted with it through advertisements in newspapers, magazines, television, video films, cinema, etc".
Calvin Klein Inc. vs International Apparel Syndicate on 16 March, 1994
44. The same view was again reiterated by a Single, Judge of Calcutta High Court as reported in 1996, PTC (16) in Calvin Klein Inc. Vs. International Apparel Syndicate. "....The international reputation of the petitioner in the name and mark Calvin Klein Jeans, shirts and t-shirts is borne out by the advertisements of the respondents where Calvin Klein had been advertised as the "Great American Classic". There is nothing American about the respondent No. 1. One of the Magazines relied upon by the respondents refers to "Another Denim Giant Enters India". The only Denim Giant with the mark of Calvin Klein outside India is the petitioner. There is no evidence to the contrary. The insistence of trade within the country by the applicant overlooks the nature of the complaint in passing off. The insistence of trade within the country by the applicant overlooks the nature of the complaint in passing off. The basis of the action is deception or the persuasion of the public to purchase goos of one in the belief that it is another's. It should not matter whether that other carries on business in the country.
Time Warner Entertainment Company, ... vs A.K. Das on 16 May, 1997
"The same view was reiterated by a Single Judge of this Court in 1997 PTC (17) 453 para 10 in Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. Vs. A.K. Das.
Amrit Soap Company vs New Punjab Soap Factory on 25 July, 1989
To the same effect is the view expressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Amrit Soap Company Vs. New Punjab Soap Factory, 1989(2) Arbitration Law Reporter 242. "The allegation that some other manufacturers are also using the same trade mark is of no consequence as the Court is concerned with parties before it only."
Century Traders vs Roshan Lal Duggar Co. on 27 April, 1977
Procter & Gamble Company vs Satish Patel And Ors. on 22 August, 1996
(iii) Proctor & Gamble Company Vs. Satish Patel & Ors. 1997 (1) A.L.R. 158.