Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.96 seconds)
Ind Swift Ltd. vs Registrar Of Trade Marks And Cadila ... on 19 January, 2005 cites

Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001

8. It is unnecessary for us to elaborate our discussion. The appellant's mark is 'STEMIN' and the second respondent's mark is 'STEMIZ'. Except the last letter 'Z' in the disputed mark, the other letters are the same. So, how far the change in the last letter would make the product of the second respondent as distinctive and also how far it would not cause any confusion or deception in the trade. We would like to draw support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Cadila Health Care Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in 2001 PTC 541, where it was held that the names 'Falcitab' and 'Falcigo' are similar and identical and the registration of the conflicting mark would cause confusion. The learned judges in the concluding paragraph of their judgment have held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004

"9. We are in full agreement with what has been laid down by this Court. Whilst considering the possibility of likelihood of deception or confusion, in present times and particularly in the field of medicines, the Courts must also keep in mind the fact that nowadays the field of medicine is of an international character. The Court has to keep in mind the possibility that with the passage of time, some conflict may occur between the use of the mark by the Applicant in India and the user by the overseas company. The Court must ensure that public interest is in no way imperiled. ..........".
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 121 - S N Variava - Full Document
1