Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Levi Strauss & Co. vs Rajesh Agarwal on 3 January, 2018
8. Even this Court, recently in Levis Strauss v.
Rajesh Agarwal [RFA 127/2007 decision
dated 3rd January, 2018], held as under:
Lt Foods Limited And Another vs Sulson Overseas Pvt Ltd on 2 July, 2012
ii. In CS (COMM) No. 25 of 2020 titled as LT Foods v
RBAK Agro India Pvt. Ltd., the Plaintiff had filed a suit
before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against an entity
by the name of RBAK Agro India Pvt. Ltd. for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS (COMM) 413/2021 Page 3 of 14
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:14.11.2022
12:16:10
2022/DHC/004806
unlicensed/unauthorized usage of its trademarks and
the infringement of trademark and copyright vested in
its DAWAT and related marks. Pertinently, the Hon'ble
Court held that the Defendant by adopting the mark
'MUGHLAI PASAND DAAWAT', the Plaintiff made
out a case for a grant of an ex-parte ad interim order
in favour of the Plaintiff.
Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. vs Balraj Muttneja & Ors. on 20 February, 2014
14. Considering the report of the Local Commissioner which has been
prepared and the evidence which has been collected by the Local
Commissioner as also the non-filing of the written statement, this Court is of
the opinion that no ex parte evidence is required in this matter. This view is
supported by the decisions of this Court in Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr.
v. Balraj Muttneja &Ors. [CS (OS) 3466/2012 decided on 20th February,
2014] and Cross Fit LLC v. RTB Gym and Fitness Centre [CS(COMM)
543/2021, date of decision 6th September, 2022].
Procter & Gamble Company vs Joy Creators & Others on 21 February, 2011
17. A ld. single judge of this Court in Proctor & Gamble Company v. Joy
Creators 2011 (450) PTC 541 Del outlined the factors behind grant of
damages. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
Lt Foods Limited vs Narwal Food Products Pvt. Ltd on 16 March, 2020
"i. In CS (COMM) No. 491 of 2019 titled LT Foods
Limited v Narwal Foods Products Private Limited, the
Plaintiff had filed a suit before the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court against an entity by the name of Narwal Foods
Products Private Limited for unlicensed/unauthorized
usage of its trademarks and the infringement of
trademark and copyright vested in its DAWAT and
related marks. Pertinently, while granting an ad-
interim injunction in the favour of the Plaintiff, the
Hon'ble Court held that the Defendant by adopting the
mark 'INDIA DAWAT', which predominantly contains
the Plaintiff's trademark 'DAWAT' is infringing the
Plaintiff's trademark and passing off its goods as that
of the plaintiff.
Cross Fit Llc vs Rtb Gym And Fitness Centre Through Its ... on 6 September, 2022
14. Considering the report of the Local Commissioner which has been
prepared and the evidence which has been collected by the Local
Commissioner as also the non-filing of the written statement, this Court is of
the opinion that no ex parte evidence is required in this matter. This view is
supported by the decisions of this Court in Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr.
v. Balraj Muttneja &Ors. [CS (OS) 3466/2012 decided on 20th February,
2014] and Cross Fit LLC v. RTB Gym and Fitness Centre [CS(COMM)
543/2021, date of decision 6th September, 2022].
Dhani Loans And Services Limited & Anr. vs Www.Dhanifinance.Com & Ors. on 12 October, 2022
The said judgment has been re-affirmed by a ld. Judge of this Court in
Burberry Limited and Ors. v 99 Labels.Com [CS(OS) 2306/2013, date of
decision 10th July, 2017]. A similar view has also been taken in Dhani
Loans and Services Limited and Ors. v. WWW.DHANIFINANCE.COM
[CS(COMM) 675/2019, date of decision 12th October, 2022].
Lt Foods Limited vs Sri Siva Sai Datta Enterprises on 21 July, 2022
iii.In CS (COMM) No. 26 of 2020 titled as LT Foods v
Sri Siva Sai Datta Enterprises, the Plaintiff had filed a
suit before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against an
entity by the name of Sri Siva Sai Datta Enterprises for
unlicensed/unauthorized usage of its trademarks and
the infringement of trademark and copyright vested in
its DAWAT and related marks. Pertinently, the Hon'ble
Court held that the Defendant by adopting the mark
'DAAWAT', the Plaintiff made out a case for a grant of
an ex-parte ad interim order in favour of the Plaintiff."
1