Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55 (0.36 seconds)
Sant Nirankari Mandal(Regd) vs Nirankari Dham And Ors on 19 September, 2025 cites

Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. vs Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 19 February, 2014

36. Counsel for defendants nos. 1 and 2 in his rebuttal has reiterated the arguments already advanced by him and has further placed reliance on the judgments of Khadi & Village Industries Commission Vs. Registrar of Trademark 2025 SCC Online Bom 179; Subway IP LLC vs. Infinity Food & Ors. 2023:DHC:269; Yatra Online Ltd. vs. Mach Conferences & Events Ltd 2025: DHC:7167; Living Media India Ltd. & Anr vs. Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 2016:DHC:747-DB and Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vasundhra Fashion Jewellery LLP and Anr.2023:DHC:4960 to argue that no exclusive right to use the common/generic name can be granted to a party and further that infringement of Trademark Act can only be a registered trademarks and the device mark has to be considered as a whole.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

Living Media India Limited & Anr vs Aabtak Channel.Com (John Does) & Ors on 30 March, 2022

In Living Media India Ltd. vs. Aabtak Channel.com (John Does), 2023 SCC Online Del 5680 the court reiterated that the common part of the rival marks can be treated as a dominant part. On the basis of commonality, the court can arrive at a finding that the marks are deceptively similar to each other. This is an exception to the anti- dissection rule under Section 17(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited vs Fashion One Television Llc And Anr on 22 March, 2023

In Bennet Coleman and Company Ltd. v. Fashion One Television (supra) Hon'ble High Court observed that the principle of 'anti dissection' does not impose an absolute embargo upon the consideration of the constituent elements of a composite mark. The said elements may be viewed as a preliminary step on the way to an ultimate determination of probable customer reaction to the conflicting Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Subway Ip Llc vs Infinity Food & Ors. on 12 January, 2023

36. Counsel for defendants nos. 1 and 2 in his rebuttal has reiterated the arguments already advanced by him and has further placed reliance on the judgments of Khadi & Village Industries Commission Vs. Registrar of Trademark 2025 SCC Online Bom 179; Subway IP LLC vs. Infinity Food & Ors. 2023:DHC:269; Yatra Online Ltd. vs. Mach Conferences & Events Ltd 2025: DHC:7167; Living Media India Ltd. & Anr vs. Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 2016:DHC:747-DB and Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vasundhra Fashion Jewellery LLP and Anr.2023:DHC:4960 to argue that no exclusive right to use the common/generic name can be granted to a party and further that infringement of Trademark Act can only be a registered trademarks and the device mark has to be considered as a whole.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969

In support of his arguments counsel for the defendant nos.1 and 2 has relied upon the judgments of JR Kapoor Vs. Micronix India 1994 Supp (3) SCC 215; F Hoffman La Roche & Co. Ltd. Vs. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1970 SC 2062; Living Media Ltd. Vs. Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.2016 66 PTC 200 (Del) DB; Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Treasure Vase Ventures Pvt. Ltd. MANU / DE / 1862 / 2020; Novelty Emporium Vs. Novelty Creations Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/1483/2001; M/s. Nandhini Deluxe Vs. M/s. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Ltd. 2018 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 197 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Living Media India Limited vs Jitender V. Jain And Anr. on 21 May, 2002

Counsel for the plaintiff has further placed reliance on the judgment of Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Jitender V Jain 2002 SCC Online Del 605 as regards the plaintiff acquiring distinctiveness on the words "Nirankari/Nirankar" by virtue of long, prior and continuous use. It was argued that Hon'ble High Court in this judgment held that if it can be established that descriptive word or words has or have acquired among the public, or that class of public likely to deal with the business or goods in question, a subsidiary or secondary meaning denoting or connoting the business or the origin of the article, the person claiming to restrain the user of that word or those word can obtain the relief he seeks.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 22 - J D Kapoor - Full Document

Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Vasundhara Fashion Jewelery Llp & ... on 19 July, 2023

36. Counsel for defendants nos. 1 and 2 in his rebuttal has reiterated the arguments already advanced by him and has further placed reliance on the judgments of Khadi & Village Industries Commission Vs. Registrar of Trademark 2025 SCC Online Bom 179; Subway IP LLC vs. Infinity Food & Ors. 2023:DHC:269; Yatra Online Ltd. vs. Mach Conferences & Events Ltd 2025: DHC:7167; Living Media India Ltd. & Anr vs. Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 2016:DHC:747-DB and Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vasundhra Fashion Jewellery LLP and Anr.2023:DHC:4960 to argue that no exclusive right to use the common/generic name can be granted to a party and further that infringement of Trademark Act can only be a registered trademarks and the device mark has to be considered as a whole.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - A Bansal - Full Document

M/S. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr. on 13 October, 2014

In the case of South India Beverages (supra) Hon'ble High Court observed that composite mark has led to the development of the doctrine of 'anti-dissection' and identification of the dominant mark. The court discussed the rule of 'anti-dissection' which mandates that the courts, whilst dealing with cases of trademark infringement involving composite marks, must consider the composite marks in their entirety as an indivisible whole rather than truncating or dissecting them into its component parts and make comparison with the corresponding parts of a rival mark to determine the likelihood of confusion. The raison d'être underscoring the said principle is that the commercial impression of a composite trademark on an ordinary prospective buyer is created by the mark as a whole and not by its component parts. While a mark is to be considered in entirety, yet it is permissible to accord more or less importance or 'dominance' to a particular portion or element of a mark in cases of composite marks. Thus, a particular element of a composite mark which enjoys greater prominence vis-à-vis other constituent elements, may be termed as a 'dominant mark'. It was observed that dominant features are significant because they attract attention and consumers are more likely to remember and rely on them for purposes of identification of the product. Usually, the dominant portion of a mark is that which has the greater strength or carries more weight.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 42 - P Nandrajog - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next