Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.05 seconds)
Meher Distilleries Pvt.Ltd vs Sg Worldwide Inc. And Anr on 23 August, 2021 cites

Neon Laboratories Ltd vs Themis Medicare Ltd on 16 September, 2014

and 'TOLD MOM XXX RUM", analysed the marks OLD MONK and TOLD MOM XXX RUM held that if they are repeatedly spoken, they may not appear similar; however, it is not the test of microscopic examination in the court room but how they would be pronounced and will be phonetically similar where they are used. Learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Themis Medicare Ltd.7, after comparing the plaintiff's mark 'LOX' and the defendant mark 'XYLOX', observed that defendant's mark XYLOX is substantially and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark LOX and, accordingly, granted injunction.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 6 - G S Patel - Full Document

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969

38. The peculiar facts in Meso were that various international brands were using the mark along with their house mark. The decision in the case Meso will have to be understood in the facts of the case as noted in the decision itself. The decision in Meso was rendered in the facts of that case, and no absolute proposition as the impugned order refers to was laid down. Having relied upon the decision of Meso thus, the impugned order does not indicate as to what will be the position in the case at hand. No decision is cited before us laying down an absolute proposition that even though a mark constitutes as a trademark under Section 2(1) (zb), if it is used with a house name, will not infringe a registered trademark in cases of all premium consumer products, irrespective of the factual situation of the case. If such an absolute proposition is accepted, almost every registered trademark in premium consumer products will be vulnerable. On the other hand, the impugned order does not refer to a series of decisions holding that mere addition of a word or a mark to an objected mark would not by itself make any 31 COMAPEAL(L) 10963.21..doc difference to the action for infringement. These are : the decision of the Supreme Court in Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engineering Co.9; the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agro Consumer Products Ltd.10; the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India11 ; and the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty v. K. Venkatesa Mudaliar ,12. Therefore the direct conclusion that the use of house marks in all circumstances in expensive consumer products of all types will obviate the likelihood of confusion as a proposition was not correct in law. Consequently, factual inquiry about the facts of the present case is missing in the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 289 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Pidilite Industries Limited vs Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products ... on 13 January, 2014

38. The peculiar facts in Meso were that various international brands were using the mark along with their house mark. The decision in the case Meso will have to be understood in the facts of the case as noted in the decision itself. The decision in Meso was rendered in the facts of that case, and no absolute proposition as the impugned order refers to was laid down. Having relied upon the decision of Meso thus, the impugned order does not indicate as to what will be the position in the case at hand. No decision is cited before us laying down an absolute proposition that even though a mark constitutes as a trademark under Section 2(1) (zb), if it is used with a house name, will not infringe a registered trademark in cases of all premium consumer products, irrespective of the factual situation of the case. If such an absolute proposition is accepted, almost every registered trademark in premium consumer products will be vulnerable. On the other hand, the impugned order does not refer to a series of decisions holding that mere addition of a word or a mark to an objected mark would not by itself make any 31 COMAPEAL(L) 10963.21..doc difference to the action for infringement. These are : the decision of the Supreme Court in Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engineering Co.9; the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agro Consumer Products Ltd.10; the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India11 ; and the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty v. K. Venkatesa Mudaliar ,12. Therefore the direct conclusion that the use of house marks in all circumstances in expensive consumer products of all types will obviate the likelihood of confusion as a proposition was not correct in law. Consequently, factual inquiry about the facts of the present case is missing in the impugned order.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 26 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 5 November, 2015

38. The peculiar facts in Meso were that various international brands were using the mark along with their house mark. The decision in the case Meso will have to be understood in the facts of the case as noted in the decision itself. The decision in Meso was rendered in the facts of that case, and no absolute proposition as the impugned order refers to was laid down. Having relied upon the decision of Meso thus, the impugned order does not indicate as to what will be the position in the case at hand. No decision is cited before us laying down an absolute proposition that even though a mark constitutes as a trademark under Section 2(1) (zb), if it is used with a house name, will not infringe a registered trademark in cases of all premium consumer products, irrespective of the factual situation of the case. If such an absolute proposition is accepted, almost every registered trademark in premium consumer products will be vulnerable. On the other hand, the impugned order does not refer to a series of decisions holding that mere addition of a word or a mark to an objected mark would not by itself make any 31 COMAPEAL(L) 10963.21..doc difference to the action for infringement. These are : the decision of the Supreme Court in Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engineering Co.9; the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agro Consumer Products Ltd.10; the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India11 ; and the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty v. K. Venkatesa Mudaliar ,12. Therefore the direct conclusion that the use of house marks in all circumstances in expensive consumer products of all types will obviate the likelihood of confusion as a proposition was not correct in law. Consequently, factual inquiry about the facts of the present case is missing in the impugned order.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 6 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1   2 3 Next