Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals ... on 18 May, 2012
35. Similarly, the reliance of the respondent on the judgments in the
case of United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2942, Laxmikant V
Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr.: 2002 (3) SCC 65 and Himalaya
Drug Co. v. S.B.L. Limited : 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2206 is of no help
in the facts of the present case. There is no cavil to the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Courts in the said judgments. However, the
Courts in those cases had concluded that the competing marks were
deceptively similar, whereas in the present case, as discussed above, the
marks in our opinion, are not similar.
The Himalaya Drug Company vs M/S. S.B.L. Limited on 9 November, 2012
35. Similarly, the reliance of the respondent on the judgments in the
case of United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2942, Laxmikant V
Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr.: 2002 (3) SCC 65 and Himalaya
Drug Co. v. S.B.L. Limited : 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2206 is of no help
in the facts of the present case. There is no cavil to the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Courts in the said judgments. However, the
Courts in those cases had concluded that the competing marks were
deceptively similar, whereas in the present case, as discussed above, the
marks in our opinion, are not similar.
Section 17 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
Bright Enterprises Private Ltd & Anr vs Mj Bizcraft Llp & Anr on 4 January, 2017
It is settled law that the
findings which are returned on the basis of the material in respect of
which no opportunity of rebuttal, is given to the party, are vulnerable
and are liable to be set aside [Ref: Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
v. MJ Bizcraft LLP & Anr.:2017:DHC:67-DB. In Ssangyong
Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National
Highways Authority of India (NHAI) : (2019) 15 SCC 131], reliance
placed on the government guidelines was faulted as the same was not
put to a party. It was held that the same cannot be relied upon since
party against whom the material is relied upon could have argued that
such material is not correct or was open to some other interpretation.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
It is settled law that the
findings which are returned on the basis of the material in respect of
which no opportunity of rebuttal, is given to the party, are vulnerable
and are liable to be set aside [Ref: Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
v. MJ Bizcraft LLP & Anr.:2017:DHC:67-DB. In Ssangyong
Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National
Highways Authority of India (NHAI) : (2019) 15 SCC 131], reliance
placed on the government guidelines was faulted as the same was not
put to a party. It was held that the same cannot be relied upon since
party against whom the material is relied upon could have argued that
such material is not correct or was open to some other interpretation.
Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing ... vs Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt Ltd on 25 October, 2016
33. We also do not agree with the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the respondent that since the appellant has itself applied for
the trademark registration for the mark 'DD Free Dish', it cannot be
heard to say that the said mark is generic / publici juris. The judgments
passed by this Court in the case of Procter & Gamble Manufacturing
(Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt.
Ltd.:2014:DHC:2936-DB, and Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K.
Dhawan & Anr.:1999 SCC OnLine Del 27, are of little assistance to
the respondent.
Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dgawan & Anr. on 6 January, 1999
33. We also do not agree with the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the respondent that since the appellant has itself applied for
the trademark registration for the mark 'DD Free Dish', it cannot be
heard to say that the said mark is generic / publici juris. The judgments
passed by this Court in the case of Procter & Gamble Manufacturing
(Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt.
Ltd.:2014:DHC:2936-DB, and Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K.
Dhawan & Anr.:1999 SCC OnLine Del 27, are of little assistance to
the respondent.
Laxmikant V.Patel vs Chetanbhat Shah & Anr on 4 December, 2001
35. Similarly, the reliance of the respondent on the judgments in the
case of United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2942, Laxmikant V
Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr.: 2002 (3) SCC 65 and Himalaya
Drug Co. v. S.B.L. Limited : 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2206 is of no help
in the facts of the present case. There is no cavil to the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Courts in the said judgments. However, the
Courts in those cases had concluded that the competing marks were
deceptively similar, whereas in the present case, as discussed above, the
marks in our opinion, are not similar.