Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)
Holy Cow Foundation vs Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas (Trust) And ... on 9 January, 2026 cites

K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969

21. The Petitioner submitted that the Impugned Mark is phonetically, visually, and structurally identical to the Petitioner's Mark, thereby causing confusion and deception amongst consumers. The Petitioner relies upon the judgments in Amritdhara Pharmacy (supra) and K.R. Chinna Krishan Chettiar (supra) to support this contention. It is correct that phonetic Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEELAM C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2021 Page 16 of 21 SHARMA Signing Date:09.01.2026 19:11:41 similarity is an important factor in determining likelihood of confusion. However, the assessment of similarity must be undertaken holistically, taking into account the visual, phonetic, and conceptual aspects of the Marks, as well as the surrounding circumstances, including the presence of House Marks and the nature of the goods.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 153 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Kia Wang vs The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. on 15 September, 2023

9.8. Section 11 of the Act applies only where the disputed Mark is used subsequent to an earlier Trade Mark. The common thread running through Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act is that both provisions require the identity or similarity of the impugned mark with an earlier Trade Mark. Once it is established that the Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEELAM C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2021 Page 10 of 21 SHARMA Signing Date:09.01.2026 19:11:41 petitioner is not an earlier trade mark by way of registration of trade mark application, the applicability of Section 11 of the Act stands extinguished and becomes infructuous. Reliance was placed in the decision of Kia Wang (supra) while making the above submission.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Meso Private Limited vs Liberty Shoed Ltd. And Anr on 8 August, 2019

a. Valvoline Cummins Limited v. Apar Industries Limited, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6414 b. MESO Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. Liberty Shoes Ltd., Haryana and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1506 9.10. The Petitioner's Goods under the Petitioner's Mark under Class 05 are for biodegradable disinfectants (phenyl), ayurvedic and medicinal preparations, antiseptic and antibacterial preparations, Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEELAM C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2021 Page 11 of 21 SHARMA Signing Date:09.01.2026 19:11:41 germicides, preparations, and substances for neutralizing, controlling, or reducing allergens, medicated skin and hair care preparations, mosquito repellent, toiletries, cosmetic. The goods of the Respondents under the Impugned Mark under Class 05 is for sanitary preparations. Hence, there is no possibility of confusion or deception as the rival goods themselves are entirely different.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - N M Jamdar - Full Document
1   2 Next