Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.48 seconds)
Under Armour, Inc vs Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd. on 20 April, 2023 cites

National Bell Co. & Anr vs Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr on 18 March, 1970

―21. As far as the Appellant's argument that the word MOLA is common to the trade and that variants of MOLA are available in the market, we find that the Appellant has not been able to prima facie prove that the said ‗infringers' had significant business turnover or they posed a threat to Plaintiff's distinctiveness. In fact, we are of the view that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not expected to sue all small type infringers who may not be affecting Respondent/Plaintiff business. The Supreme Court in National Bell v. Metal Goods25, has held that a proprietor of a trademark need not take action against infringement which do not cause prejudice to its distinctiveness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 113 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd & Anr. on 10 April, 2023

―...the owners of trade marks or copy rights are not expected to run after every infringer and thereby remain involved in litigation at the cost of their business time. If the impugned infringement is too trivial or insignificant and is not capable of harming their business interests, they may overlook and ignore petty violations till they assume alarming proportions. If a road side Dhaba puts up a board of ―Taj Hotel‖, the owners of Taj Group are not expected to swing into action and raise objections forthwith. They can wait till the time the user of their name starts harming their business interest and starts misleading and confusing their customers.‖‖ (Emphasis supplied) 6.3 Relying on Pankaj Goel24, this Bench has, in a recent decision in Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd28, observed as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next