Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Raymond Ltd vs Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd on 20 July, 2016
(p) The decision in Vasundhra Jewellers is also clearly
distinguishable as, in that case, the plaintiff did not have any
registration for the word mark VASUNDHRA. The Court was,
therefore, concerned only with device-to-device comparison and
found that the devices were dissimilar. In view of the fact that
the respondent holds a word mark registration for the mark
SVAMAAN, the decision in Vasundhra Jewellers can have no
application.
Section 12 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani & Anr. on 13 October, 2022
"44. The defendants have also relied upon the judgment
in Vasundhra Jewellers v Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani,
wherein the plaintiff claimed exclusivity over the word
VASUNDHRA despite having no registration for the word
mark VASUNDHRA. The Court held in favour of the
defendant, whose mark was visually different from the
plaintiff's marks. In the present case, the plaintiff has valid
registrations for the word mark 'SVAMAAN'. Therefore,
the aforesaid judgment cannot come to the rescue of the
defendants in the present case."
Cfa Institute vs Brickwork Finance Academy on 6 October, 2020
The observation of the learned Single Judge that the difference
in the nature, size and the quantum of the loans provided by the
appellants on the one hand and the respondent, on the other,
was inconsequential as it was an admitted position that both
were providing loans, is contrary to the principle laid down in
Trustees of Princeton University. The learned Single Judge
has proceeded to observe that, even if Svamaan Financial
Services Pvt Ltd was providing smaller loans, as compared to
the loans provided by Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan
Finserv Ltd at that point of time, nothing prevented Svamaan
Financial Services Pvt Ltd from expending its business in future
and providing big loans and housing loans. This, submits
learned Senior Counsel, is a purely hypothetical and speculative
finding, which cannot constitute the basis of an order of
injunction.
Somany Ceramics Limited vs Shri Ganesh Electric Co. & Ors. on 28 July, 2022
(f) The triple identity test stands satisfied in the present case,
inasmuch as the marks are deceptively similar to each other, they
deal with same services i.e. financial loans and cater to the same
customer segment. In this context, learned Senior Counsel submit
that the learned Single Judge is correct in his finding that, even if,
today, the respondent is advancing loans which are much less
than the loans ordinarily advanced by the appellants, that
situation can always change and the respondent may decide to
enter the space occupied the appellants. For this purpose, learned
Senior Counsel place reliance on the following passage from
Somany Ceramics v Shri Ganesh Electric19:
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
(j) In the case of infringement, unlike passing off, the
comparison is mark to mark. Thus, even if there is added
material, in the form of differences in imagery and the like,
which may distinguish the two marks when seen as device marks
or logos, that factor would be relevant only while examining
whether a case of passing off exists. It has no relevance to the
aspect of infringement. Reliance is placed, in this regard, on the
following passages from Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v
Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories20: