Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.43 seconds)Hiralal Parbhudas vs Ganesh Trading Company And Ors. on 6 December, 1983
In fact in Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names 10th
Edition at page 473 quoted in paragraph 11 of Hiralal Parbhudas
(Supra) supports the argument of Mr. Chatterjee that if the marks are
phonetically similar a case of passing off is established.
Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. & Anr vs Best Media Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd on 11 November, 2009
In the context of the explanation offered for adoption of "FLANE"
in this proceeding, I am constrained to accept the argument made by
Mr. Chatterjee that the defendant could not have designed their
packaging without placing the packaging of the plaintiff. In fact, if the
24
explanation in the counter statement filed before the Trade Mark
Registry is accepted then they were not even aware of the existence of
the word "FLANE" in the English dictionary. Prima facie, it is clear that
it is a case of violation of vested rights of the plaintiff and pirator
thereof cannot become rightful owner in any manner. Thus, the
plaintiff has made out a strong case of injunction. An unexplained
similarity is a relevant and important consideration while testing the
question of honesty of adoption of the mark. (see. 2011 (47) PTC 51
(Bom) Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. and Anr vs. Best Media
Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.)
In view of the above, it appears from the record that two set of
packaging are almost similar. Both marks, "FLAKE" and "FLANE" are
deceptively similar.
Manjibhai Laxmikant Joshi vs Legal Heirs Of Paresh @ Vithhal ... on 14 December, 2016
This Court has given its imprimatur to the above
principle in Laxmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3
SCC 65.
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors on 29 August, 2006
In another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramdev
Food Products Ltd. vs. Arvindhbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors.,
reported at 2006 (8) SCC 726, the Supreme Court has observed that
the test for determining deceptive similarity in an infringement action
would be the same as in the case of a passing off action. The Court
observed that although the defendants might not be using the actual
trademark of the plaintiff, the get up of the defendant's goods may be
so much like the plaintiff's that a clear case of passing off could be
proved. It was held:-
S. Syed Mohideen vs P. Sulochana Bai on 17 March, 2015
In this regard reference may be made to S. Syed
Mohidden vs. P. Solochana Bai reported at (2016) 2 SCC 683 in
which it is stated:
Itc Limited vs Golden Tobacco Limited on 26 July, 2018
The petitioner has disclosed proceedings initiated by the
petitioner for protecting its valuable intellectual property rights over
and in respect of the word "FLAKE". The petitioner has filed
proceedings against Godfrey Phillips, Pelican Gold Flame, Sun Flake
and few others. In addition to these proceedings in relation to the mark
"FLAKE", the petitioner has also moved against various users, including
Paris Gold, in relation to the "Gold" mark. However, where the
petitioner has not found user against a brand, like Red & White Flake,
it has not approached the Court in any proceeding. The petitioner has
relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High
Court in O.S. A. No. 260 to 262 of 2015, ITC Limited vs. Golden
Tobacco Limited dated 26.07.2018, where the Division Bench in
paragraph 16 has recognised that the word mark "GOLD FLAKE" is a
well-known mark associated with cigarettes. The earlier registration
dates back to 11th November, 1942, the trade dress of the plaintiff in
relation to GOLD FLAKE are: