Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.66 seconds)
Bharati Cellular Ltd. And Anr. vs Jai Distillers P. Ltd. on 21 March, 2006 cites

Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft And ... vs Hybo Hindustan on 10 November, 1993

25. In my opinion the court is empowered to grant injunction on the ground of passing off even if the defendants do not operate in the same field of activity but while doing so the court must see whether the plaintiffs are able to establish implacable reputation of such a huge nature that the business carried out by any person under the said trade name would tantamount to suggest that it is the business of the plaintiffs. In my opinion in the present case such principle has not been satisfied by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs reputation undoubtedly is only inrespect of the business of telecommunication and it is not extended to any other business or products. The reputation of the business of the plaintiff is only in India. It has not travelled to other nations. Further more it is not possible to accept the contention of the plaintiff that a person buying a whisky, liquor would assume that it is the plaintiffs who are selling the whisky in the market in place of the defendants herein. Strong reliance placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the judgment of the Delhi High court in the case of Mercedes Benz (supra) and in the case of Volvo(supra) are in my opinion do not apply to the facts of the present case. There can be no dispute that the brand Mercedes Benz is a well known reputed brand though in relation to motor vehicle. Same is the position in the case of Volvo for the buses. In the judgment of the Delhi High Court the court was of the view that while using the mark Mercedes and Benz in relation to undergarments manufactured by the defendant he infact sought to copy the said mark with the picture of logo and he had an intention to earn on the reputation of the well established Mercedes Benz brand. Insppourt of the aforesaid contention the Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that the emblem of the Mercedes Benz is also been copied by the defendant in that case while using the said brand name in relation to his product of undergarments. In the case of Volvo also the main consideration of the Division Bench to grant relief was that the Volvo was already well established brand and had acquired a super status brand. In the present case the plaintiffs have undoubtedly acquired a reputation in their brand name 'AirTel' but to hold that the said reputation is of such a nature that it has acquired a super brand status or has acquired the international reputation so as to prevent any person from carrying on any business under the said name is in my opinion cannot sustain on the facts of the present case. Thus I do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff in relation to passing off of the business of the defendants as if the same belongs to the plaintiffs herein.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959

The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Corn Products v. Shangrila Food Products and gave a finding that the defendant must establish a substantial Page 0989 evidence to show that the said goods are sold extensively in the market and the sale figures of such third parties are such that such a party has acquired reputation by user of the said goods in the market. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the defendant must establish exclusive use in the market. Even at the interim proceedings according to the learned Single Judge it is not sufficient merely for the defendant to show prima facie that there is user of the mark by various parties in the market. He must produce a prima facie evidence to show substantial use and at the final hearing of the suit the level of the proof is higher and the defendant must prove a substantial use by such third parties. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment the plaintiffs have urged that the defendant has failed to show the substantial sale of the said various products which are sold in the market under mark "CEF" and thus even though products are sold in the market with similar mark as that of the plaintiff still the defendant should be injuncted from using the same mark. Apart from the fact that I do not subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment but I am refraining to go into the same in this matter. It is because in the present case on the facts in my opinion the defendant has been able to establish a substantial user of the said mark by various companies in the market. The defendants have produced before me in the form of sale figures of various companies by relying upon the survey conducted by ORG-MARG which are set out at Exhibits 14, 15 and 16 of the affidavit in reply. A mere perusal of the said exhibits leaves no manner of doubt that the drugs almost with similar mark as that of the plaintiff and defendant both is in the market extensively and is being sold in market also with substantial sales figure. In that view of the matter I am of the opinion that the mark of the plaintiff does not have any exclusivity and is being frequently used not only by the defendant but by various other parties in the market in respect of pharmaceutical drugs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 398 - Full Document

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

However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Cadila Health care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. . He has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in which the Division Bench has interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge and has granted injunction. The learned counsel has relied upon para 27 of the said judgment and has contended that the confusion arising from similarly of marks among medicines are required to be taken into consideration and, therefore, the Court must grant an injunction. In the present case, no such case has been made out and, therefore the question of granting injunction on that basis does not arise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document
1   2 Next