Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Smithkline Beecham Plc. & Anr. vs Sunil Sarmalkar & Ors. on 5 October, 2012 cites

Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999

5. It is settled law that in order to establish the entitlement of a person to the reliefs of infringement or passing off, it is necessary that although the defendants are exparte plaintiffs must also prove their case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Taneja & Anr. vs. CS(OS) No.1181/2003 Page 3 of 14 Sunil Madan, 1999 (8) SCC 396 that even where there is no defence of a defendant, and the facts as stated in the plaint are such that the same required to be proved, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to a judgment unless the plaintiff proves his/its case. Paras 42 and 45 of the said judgment are relevant and are reproduced below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 582 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

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

15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon two judgments of the Supreme Court, first in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 1952 and second in the case of N.R.Dongre vs. Whirlpool Corporation, 1996 PTC (16). These judgments have been relied upon in support of the proposition of the entitlement to the relief of infringement on the ground of registration and the entitlement to the relief on the ground of passing off on the basis of prior use. All I have to say is that propositions of laws stated in these judgments cannot be disputed, however, to apply the law, it is necessary that the plaintiff at the stage of final arguments has proved the case as stated in the plaint. If the plaintiff fails to prove the case, I fail to understand that how CS(OS) No.1181/2003 Page 11 of 14 reference to the judgments stating a legal position can in any manner help the plaintiffs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 347 - Full Document

Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001

15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon two judgments of the Supreme Court, first in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 1952 and second in the case of N.R.Dongre vs. Whirlpool Corporation, 1996 PTC (16). These judgments have been relied upon in support of the proposition of the entitlement to the relief of infringement on the ground of registration and the entitlement to the relief on the ground of passing off on the basis of prior use. All I have to say is that propositions of laws stated in these judgments cannot be disputed, however, to apply the law, it is necessary that the plaintiff at the stage of final arguments has proved the case as stated in the plaint. If the plaintiff fails to prove the case, I fail to understand that how CS(OS) No.1181/2003 Page 11 of 14 reference to the judgments stating a legal position can in any manner help the plaintiffs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document
1