Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.28 seconds)
M/S. Sas Pharmaceuticals vs . M/S. Sos Pharma on 11 December, 2014 cites

Syncom Formulations (India) Ltd. vs Sas Pharmaceuticals on 12 May, 2004

(iv)The observations laid down in Syncom Formulations Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals, 2004(28) PTC 632 (Del), that Mark REGULIN FORTE of plaintiff and of Mark REGU­30 of defendant has same visual and phonetic similarity of first four letters, which are enough to confuse or mislead unwary customers, applies in this situation since word REGULATOR, also carries first four letters, from plaintiff's mark.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 17 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Lilly Icos Llc & Anr. vs Maiden Pharmaceuticals Lim. on 6 March, 2009

It has been held in catena of judgments that REGULIN is not a general term nor the trade name as claimed by the defendant. The plaintiff is prior user of trade name REGULIN, which was got registered, therefore plaintiff is a TM No. 16/2011 Page 20 of 31 M/s. SAS Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s. SOS Pharma registered proprietor and it is protected under statutory rights. During the pending of case, the registration has been renewed for further period of 10 years from 31.8.2014, the certificate dated 6..8.2014 has also been placed on record. The other reasons and contentions are derived by the plaintiff while relying upon :­ i. Lilly ICOS LLC & Anr Vs. Maiden Pharmaceuticals Lim, 2009 (39) PTC 666(Del.) while dealing with interim application for injunction, plaintiff's trademark CLALIS and defendant's mark MCALIS were in issue, it was held that there is similarity and affinity of sound between the words / marks CLALIS & MCALIS; also held that defendant had no justification to adopt and use deceptive and similar trademark with device and trade dress of tablet.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - M Singh - Full Document

The Himalaya Drug Company vs M/S. S.B.L. Limited on 9 November, 2012

vii.Himalaya Drug Company Vs. S.B.L. Limited, 2013 (53) PTC 1, plaintiff is registered owner of Liv.52 and defendant was using mark Liv­T, the defendant took the defence that mark Liv is publici juris and many persons are using the similar mark, however, it is held that in the absence of any cancellation of petition being filed by the defendant such defence is not available in respect of registered mark. The defendant was restrained from using the mark 'Liv' as part of a trademark.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 17 - M Singh - Full Document

Itm Trust vs Educate India Society on 20 July, 2012

It does not cause any confusion because there is no similarity or identical appearance. The plaintiff could not establish the issues no.1 and 2, therefore, it is not entitled for any relief of injunction. The issue no.1 and 2 are to be decided against the TM No. 16/2011 Page 23 of 31 M/s. SAS Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s. SOS Pharma plaintiff. The further contention of defendant are based on the reasons given in judicial pronouncements, which are :­ i. ITM Trust vs. Educate India Society, 2012 (52) PTC 276, while disposing off / rejecting the application, for interim injunction, the plaintiff's mark 'Institute of Technology & Management and ITM' and defendant's Mark 'ITM', it was held that registration of Mark as a whole would not confer any statutory right in favour of the plaintiff with respect of parts of words used in a mark which is registered as a whole - No overall similarity between two marks except for alphabet ITM.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Skyline Education Institute (India) ... vs Mr. S.L. Vaswani And Anr. on 6 May, 2003

ii. Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Ltd. Vs. S.L. Vaswani and another, 2010 AIR (SC) 3221, the appellant operates business with name prefixed 'Skyline' and respondent institute of engineering and technology also prefixes words 'skyline', however appellant's request to restrain the respondent was declined by holding 'skyline' was a generic work, since the same is being used as trade name by various institutions and companies. iii.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 67 - R C Jain - Full Document

Arm Group Enterprises Ltd vs Waldorf Restaurant & Ors on 1 April, 2003

5. At the stage of final hearing Sh. A.K. Goel, Advocate for plaintiff and Sh. Aditya Jain, Advocate for defendant presented their TM No. 16/2011 Page 13 of 31 M/s. SAS Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s. SOS Pharma contentions; the plaintiff' has also filed their written synopsis. Both the parties have also argued on additional points which were not directly in the form of issues but stating the same are relevant, therefore, the same are to be dealt firstly, before taking the formal issues. 6.1 Ld. Counsel for defendant requests that the plaint is liable to be dismissed as it has not been signed and filed by competent person/registered proprietor of trade marks and secondly the plaint is barred by law of limitation. Section 2(v) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 talks about registered proprietor and as per plaintiff's own case the registered proprietor are Smt. Kamla Jain and Sandeep Jain but they have not authored the plaint, the suit has been filed by name M/s SAS PHARMACEUTICALS, who is not a registered proprietor of marks. The suit is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Reliance is placed on Arm Group Enterprises Ltd. vs. Waldorf Restaurant (2003) 6 SCC 423 (SC) 4106, wherein it was held in section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 that in the absence of an agreement contrary, property exclusively belonging to a person, on his entering into partnership with others it does not become the property of the partnership because it is used for business of partnership. Secondly, as per plaint , the defendant came TM No. 16/2011 Page 14 of 31 M/s. SAS Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s. SOS Pharma across publication of defendant's trade mark REGULATOR in August 2006 but the suit was filed in 2010, it is barred by ordinary period of limitation of three years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Biofarma And Anr. vs Sanjay Medical Store And Ors. on 31 March, 1997

vi. Biofarma & Anr. vs. Sanjay Medical Store & Ors. 1997 PTC 355, plaintiff medicine are sold under the mark 'Flavedon' and defendant's medicine under the mark 'Trivedon', however it was held that not only the said medicine are visually dissimilar but the same are to be purchased on the prescription of Doctor, being scheduled H drug, there is no likelihood of confusion and interim injunction was refused.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next