Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.02 seconds)
Koninklijke Philips Electronics Nv vs Smt. Kanta Arora And Ors. on 23 May, 2005 cites

Honda Motors Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Charanjit Singh And Ors. on 28 November, 2002

21. Coming then to the facts of the present case it is evident that the plaintiff company is a globally reputed company. Its trade mark "PHILIPS" has been used for nearly 100 years for a variety of products. It has earned a goodwill and reputation worldwide for the reliability of its products which are now identified by its trade mark. Anyone looking at a product which carries the "PHILIPS" trade mark is lured to believe that it is a product manufactured by the plaintiff and can therefore, be trusted for its quality and reliability. The very fact that the plaintiff is not itself manufacturing pressure cookers is in my opinion wholly besides the point. The question is not whether the plaintiff also is manufacturing and marketing the very same product. The question is whether the product which the defendants are marketing can by reason of the deception of the trade mark under which it is sold, be taken by the consumer public as a product manufactured by the plaintiff. Just as Mercedes Benz could in Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan, (supra) prevent use of Benz as a trade mark for under-garments even when Mercedes Benz was not itself engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling under-garments and just as Honda could in Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Charanjit Singh and Ors., (supra) prevent sale of pressure cookers even when it was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile and power equipment only so also "PHILIPS" even when it is not manufacturing non-electric pressure cookers can prevent the defendants from using its trade mark for the sale of such pressure cookers. This is especially so when the plaintiff is engaged in the business of allied and cognate consumer products like kitchenware and electric pressure cookers. It is in that background not unreasonable to assume that a consumer with his ordinary knowledge, perceptions and memory is likely to believe that the plaintiff has extended its manufacturing activities to non-electric pressure cookers also for otherwise there is no reason why its world-known trade mark is being used on such products.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 41 - S Aggarwal - Full Document

Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft And ... vs Hybo Hindustan on 10 November, 1993

21. Coming then to the facts of the present case it is evident that the plaintiff company is a globally reputed company. Its trade mark "PHILIPS" has been used for nearly 100 years for a variety of products. It has earned a goodwill and reputation worldwide for the reliability of its products which are now identified by its trade mark. Anyone looking at a product which carries the "PHILIPS" trade mark is lured to believe that it is a product manufactured by the plaintiff and can therefore, be trusted for its quality and reliability. The very fact that the plaintiff is not itself manufacturing pressure cookers is in my opinion wholly besides the point. The question is not whether the plaintiff also is manufacturing and marketing the very same product. The question is whether the product which the defendants are marketing can by reason of the deception of the trade mark under which it is sold, be taken by the consumer public as a product manufactured by the plaintiff. Just as Mercedes Benz could in Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan, (supra) prevent use of Benz as a trade mark for under-garments even when Mercedes Benz was not itself engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling under-garments and just as Honda could in Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Charanjit Singh and Ors., (supra) prevent sale of pressure cookers even when it was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile and power equipment only so also "PHILIPS" even when it is not manufacturing non-electric pressure cookers can prevent the defendants from using its trade mark for the sale of such pressure cookers. This is especially so when the plaintiff is engaged in the business of allied and cognate consumer products like kitchenware and electric pressure cookers. It is in that background not unreasonable to assume that a consumer with his ordinary knowledge, perceptions and memory is likely to believe that the plaintiff has extended its manufacturing activities to non-electric pressure cookers also for otherwise there is no reason why its world-known trade mark is being used on such products.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

Century Traders vs Roshan Lal Duggar Co. on 27 April, 1977

The law of 'passing off as it has developed, permits an action against a registered proprietor of a trade mark for its mendacious use of inducting and misleading the consumers into thinking that his goods are the goods of or are connected with the goods of a prior user of the trade mark. It seems to us that in so far as this Court is concerned, this position cannot be disputed in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Century Trade v. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co., AIR 1978 Delhi 250."
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 239 - Full Document

N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

In N.R. Dongre's case (supra), one of the questions that fell for consideration was whether an action for passing off could be maintained against the registered proprietor of a trade mark. Reliance was, on behalf of the owner of the trade mark, placed upon the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Act to argue that the registration of the trade mark gave to the registered proprietor an absolute right to use the trade mark in relation to the goods in respect of which the trade mark was registered and to prevent infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided under the Act. The Court repelled that contention and held that the words "subject to the other provisions of the Act", appearing in Section 28(1), made it clear that the right conferred on a trader was not an indefeasible right as the same was expressly made "subject to the other provisions of the Act". The Court also relied upon Section 27(2) of the Act which provides that nothing in the Act shall be deemed to affect the right of action against any person for passing off the goods or the remedies thereof. The Court summed up the legal position thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 347 - Full Document
1