Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.40 seconds)
S.V.S. Oil Mills, Rep. By Its Partner, ... vs S.V.N. Agro-Refineries And S.V. ... on 28 June, 2004 cites

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

31. Applying the above tests laid down by the Supreme Court, we find that the plaintiff has been using its trading style and trademark for quite a long period and continuously whereas the defendants have entered into the said field only recently. Secondly, the goods of the plaintiff have acquired distinctiveness and are associated in the minds of the general public as goods of the plaintiff. Thirdly, the nature of activity of the plaintiff and that of the defendants are the same or similar. Fourthly, the goods of the parties with which the trade mark of the plaintiff is associated are the same or similar. Fifthly, the user of similar colour scheme and getup by the defendants as that of the plaintiff is likely to deceive and cause confusion in the mind of the public and injury to the business reputation of the plaintiff. Sixthly, the sphere of activity and the market of consumption of goods of the parties are similar. Lastly, the customers of the plaintiff inter alia include uneducated, illiterate and unwary customers who are capable of being deceived, confused or misled.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

26. Learned Judge refused to grant interim injunction on the basis that the colour scheme and getup were not subject matter of the earlier proceedings in C.S. No. 433 of 2001. We have already held that the colour scheme and getup used by the defendants were different and we also noticed the stand taken by the defendants in the earlier suit that because of the different colour scheme and getup of the label used by the second defendant, there was no chance for deception or confusion in the minds of the public, though the defendants used the trade name SVS in the labels for marketing their goods. As far as the second reasoning of the learned Judge that the colours yellow and red are used by large number of traders is concerned, we hold that there can be no objection for the second defendant to use the colours, yellow and red, but there shall not be a close similarity in the colour scheme and getup used by the defendants with that of the plaintiff, particularly when the second defendant is using the trademark SVN which is phonetically similar to the trademark of the plaintiff, SVS. The third reason is that the colour combination and getup are adopted by other oil traders. We have held that there is nothing to show that other manufacturers are using the same colour or getup in their labels, and further it is not pointed to us that there is any phonetic similarity between the trademarks employed by them and the trademark of the plaintiff. As far as the reasoning that the plaintiff has not established the distinctive colour scheme and getup of the labels is concerned, learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the class of purchaser being house-wife or housemaid though may not be literate, but would certainly have the sharp mind in purchasing the right product and would certainly go by the device inverted triangle and not by the colour combination and getup. No doubt, it is true that house-wife and housemaid have sharp mind, but the Supreme Court in CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD. v. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , after noticing the decisions in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Staya Deo and S.M. Dychem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. (AIR 2000 SC 2114), held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 150 - M J Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next