Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.48 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 17 in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 29 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
37. Learned counsel for the plaintiff had referred to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Midas Hygiene
Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90 and of this
court in Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Vipin Gupta, (2006) 7 AD (Delhi)
688 to contend that injunction could not be refused only on the
ground of delay and laches. It has to be borne in mind, in the
first place, that it would be a principle applicable in the case of
registered trade mark. Secondly and more important, is the
distinction between the cases of passing off action in
goods/trading and passing off action in literary works. In the
former case one product is competing with the other and there
are two competitors. However, as far as literary work is
concerned, as has been pointed out above, it is a specific,
separate and unique commercial item and not as one product
among many competing products. Each book, movie, play or
record is an economic market in and of itself, not in competition
with other similar literary works. Thus, in fact, this is the
genesis for the adoption of the test of secondary meaning of title
of a literary work. Therefore, it would be difficult to hold that
delay is not fatal in such cases.
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors on 29 August, 2006
11. The decision of the Supreme Court in Ramdev Food Products
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was in respect of the Trade Marks Act, 1958 and
not in respect of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
M/S. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr. on 13 October, 2014
In South India Beverages India Private Limited v. General Mills
Marketing Inc, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953, the Division Bench of
this Court had explained the 'anti-dissection rule' in some detail.
The Court reiterated that "conflicting composite marks are to be
compared by looking at them as a whole, rather than breaking the
marks up into their components parts for comparison". However, the
Court had also observed that "while a mark is to be considered in
entirety, yet it is impermissible to accord more or less importance or
'dominance' to a particular portion or element of a mark in cases of
composite marks".
Shambhu Nath & Brothers & Ors vs Imran Khan on 3 October, 2018
69. The judgments in Shambhu Nath & Brothers & Ors. (supra)
and Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. (supra) also do not help the
Plaintiff, as in both the cases the Courts had come to a conclusion that
the words 'Toofan' and 'Ramdev' respectively were essential/
dominant part of the Plaintiffs' registered marks.
H&M; Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr vs Hm Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 31 May, 2018
45. Plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgments in H&M Hennes
& Maurtiz AB and Anr. (supra) and KEI Industries Limited (supra),
to contend that there is no estoppel against a statutory right and once
Plaintiff's trademark is registered, statements made before the Trade
Signature Not VerifiedMarks registry cannot be read out of context to deny protection to the
Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR
CS(COMM) 100/2022 Page 33 of 62
Signing Date:20.08.2023
20:58:54
Plaintiff.