Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Pataka Biri Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs S.N. Biri Factory And Anr. on 23 March, 2004 cites

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

(i) Kabiraj Pandit Durgadutta Sharma v. Nabaratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories : While dealing with an identical issue the Apex Court framed a guideline to determine similar nature of disputes (i) that there was the intention on the part of the proprietor of the mark to indicate by its use the origin of the goods on which it was used and (ii) that there is undoubtably evidence regarding the recommendation of that mark as indicating origin on the part of that section of the public who buy these goods in the course of trade or for consumption.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 512 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Prem Singh vs Ceeam Auto Industries on 4 May, 1990

(iv) , Prem Singh v. Ceeam Auto Industries : Paragraph 34 of this judgment was relied upon. In this case the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court observed that in order to succeed in an infringement of copyright or passing of action, a party has to show that he is originator in the sense that the concept emanated from him and further that the given design or get up or style has become distinctive of his goods to the extent that the trading public associates his goods exclusively with the given design or get up. The moment that is established even prima facie, the Courts have never hesitated in stopping the opposite party, shown to have adopted by imitation or other disputation means the design or get up of the first party, from continuing with the mischief, because that is treated to be a rank instance of dishonesty by the second party.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Kellogg Company vs Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai And Another on 15 February, 1996

(v) 1996, PTC, page 187, Kellogg & Company v. Pravin Kumar : In this case two parties were manufacturer and seller of corn flakes. The plaintiff/petitioner alleged that they copied the design and label of the Kellogg Corn Flakes and as such there had been a case of infringement. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court rejected such plea on the ground that even though the get up was similar but different names Kellogg and Aims Aristo displayed, make all the difference and as such that was not a fit case for interference.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 27 - M J Rao - Full Document

Glaxo India Limited vs Akay Pharma Private Limited on 20 March, 2002

(ix) 2002 PTC, Vol-24, page 577, Glaxo India Limited v. Akay Pharma Private Limited : The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in this case held that any colour scheme or get up or layout or arrangement of any alphabets or feature is undoubtedly an aritistic work. It is needless to say that such identity as to the distinct features comprising of colour scheme get up layout or arrangement of features involves huge expenses and over the period identifies the manufacturers with their product so much that even the unwary or illiterate customers using the said products identify the product from the colour scheme get up and layout and arrangement of features of alphabets imprinted either upon the containers or the packing.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - J D Kapoor - Full Document
1