Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (2.29 seconds)
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 9 January, 2020 cites

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd vs Ajanta Pharma Ltd on 10 May, 2019

79. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that reliance placed on behalf of the appellant on the verdicts of this Court in Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. (supra) and Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra) is misplaced as the facts of those cases are distinguishable and not in pari materia to the facts of the instant case.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 6 - P M Singh - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. & ... vs Anglo French Drugs & Industries Ltd. & ... on 12 September, 2014

90. Furthermore, presently, the appellant though it applied for registration of the mark BEVETEX in the year 1993, which was granted to it in the year 1999 and began its utilization only in the year 2015 and despite having learnt of the launch of the defendant's drug in 2016 by having opposed the trade mark application of the defendant / respondent in the year 2016 having chosen to institute the suit by claiming that the cause of the action for the suit arose only on 20 th December, 2017, the contention of the respondent that the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant suffered from delay, laches would essentially have to be considered during the trial. Undoubtedly, drugs are not sweets but poison as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cadila (supra) as contended on behalf of the appellant, however as observed elsewhere hereinabove as laid down also in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Anglo Frensh Drgus & Industries Ltd. & Anr. (supra) by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide para 18 thereof, the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cadila (supra) has to be read in its entirety and each case is to be determined on its own facts and circumstances.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - S Mridul - Full Document

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

22. I do not accept the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant as I feel that it is more dangerous if the pharmaceuticals products bearing the same mark is used for different purposes for the same ailment or even otherwise. I also do not accept the contention of the defendant's counsel that there would be no confusion if the products contain different ingredients/different salt. In my opinion, it is more dangerous and harmful in the trade if the same trade mark is used for different ailments. The Apex court has already dealt with this proposition of law in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, (2001) 5 SCC 73 and held as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

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

The competing drugs are for FAO 447/2018 Page 64 of 87 different cancers. and administration of one for another can lead to disastrous consequences. CASE LAWS 3. Astrazeneca UK Ltd. and Both parties were registered Anr. v Orchid Chemicals proprietor and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; (2007) ILR 1 Delhi 874 The court did not find similarity (DB) between MEROMER and MERONEM The court did not consider the aspect of disastrous consequences considering competing drugs were for same ailments, same salt. Prefix MERO was taken from the salt which was proved to be common to trade.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 71 - A Kumar - Full Document

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited on 15 May, 2019

It was thus sought to be submitted by the appellant that in the instant case BEVETEX being the plaintiff's mark and BEVATAS being the respondent's marks, the facts of the instant case are in pari materia with the facts of the case in Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. with the mark of the appellant herein being BEVETEX and that of the respondent being BEVATAS.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - J Nath - Full Document

Century Traders vs Roshan Lal Duggar Co. on 27 April, 1977

"23. The other argument of the counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff's product is available in tablets and oral suspension form and the defendant's product is available in injection form has also no force as it has been seen from experience of the pharmaceuticals products available in all over the world that most of the companies are making pharmaceuticals products in both the forms i.e. tablets as well as in injection form under the same trade mark. As per well settled law, the actual confusion FAO 447/2018 Page 68 of 87 and deception is not required in order to prove the case of passing off even if the defendant has adopted the mark innocently and the court comes to the conclusion that the two trade marks are deceptively similar, injunction under the said circumstances has to be granted. Actual deception is not required in an action of passing off. Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co. AIR 1978 (Del) 250. Therefore there is no chance of confusion and deception."
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 239 - Full Document

Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959

58. Inter alia the appellant submitted that secondly BEVACIREL, BEVAREST and BEVAZZA are not deceptively similar to Plaintiff's trade mark BEVETEX and thirdly, the various marks containing prefix BEV had been applied for /pending before trade mark registry did not prove that they are in use and that common to register does not prove common to trade. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellant on the verdict of this Court in Century Traders Vs. Roshan Lai Duggar Co. AIR 1978 Delhi 250 Division Bench quoted with approval The Supreme Court in Corn Products Refining Co. Vs. FAO 447/2018 Page 61 of 87 Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142, which reads to the effect:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 398 - Full Document

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

93. It is also essential to observe that as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990(2) ARBLR 399 (SC), the Appellate Court is not to re-assess the material and seek to reach to a conclusion different from the one reached by the Court below if one reached by that Court was reasonably possible on the material available and the Appellate Court would not normally be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to contrary conclusion and that if the discretion that has been exercised by the learned trial FAO 447/2018 Page 86 of 87 Court has been reasonably exercised and in a judicial manner that the Appellate Court may or would have taken a different view, may not justify interference with the trial Court's exercise of discretion. In the instant case, as it is apparent, it cannot be contended on behalf of the appellant that there has been an unreasonable or un-judicious exercise of discretion by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 17.09.2018 in the non-grant of the prayer for the ad interim injunction as prayed by the appellant in TM No.146/2017.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next