Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 11 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Coca Cola Export Corpn. vs Income Tax Officer Coca Cola Export ... on 20 November, 1998
12. The rules of comparison of the marks have been enunciated by Justice Parker in Pianotist application case: "You must take the two words. You must Judge of them, both by their look and by their sound. You must consider the goods to which they are to be applied. You must consider the nature and kind of customer who would be likely to buy those goods. In fact, you must consider all the surrounding circumstances; and you must further consider what is likely to happen if each of those trade marks is used in a normal way as a trade mark for the goods of the respective owners of the marks. If, considering all those circumstances, you come to the conclusion that there will be confusion- that is to say, not necessarily that one man will be injured and the other will gain illicit benefit, but that there will be confusion in the mind of the public which will lead to confusion in the goods - then you may refuse the registration, or rather you must refuse the registration in that case."
Section 12 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in disposing of an appeal filed in Cadila Health Care Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Limited, 2001 PTC (21) 300(SC) directed the lower Court Vadodara for expeditious disposal of the pending suit on certain guidelines on the basis of case laws referred to therein. A few of those are as follows:-
Section 18 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
1