Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.18 seconds)
Mankind Pharma Limited vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 9 January, 2026 cites

Manu Garg And Ratan Behari Agrawal vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 1 February, 2023

In Manu Garg & Ratan Behari Agrawal v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 581, this Court held that an additional requirement under Sections 11(1)(a) of the Act would be the aspect of likelihood of confusion and likelihood of confusion is not to be easily presumed. The nature of the goods and the class of their purchasers have to be borne in mind while deciding on the likelihood of confusion.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Mankind Pharma Ltd vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Ors on 22 January, 2015

In Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6914, this Court has held that the Appellant having established its first user of the word 'KIND' is entitled to a higher protection for the word 'KIND'. Due to its continuous and extensive usage, the word 'KIND' has come to be exclusively associated with Signature Not Verified C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 13/2025 Page 8 of 10 Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:09.01.2026 18:45:10 the Appellant, and this would entitle the Appellant to a higher protection for the 'KIND Family of Marks'. The Mark 'MANKIND' belonging to the Appellant has been determined under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 as a well-known Trade Mark by the Registrar of Trade Marks and has been published in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1978 dated 14.12.2020 as a well-known Mark and included in the list of well-known Trade Marks maintained by the Registrar of Trade Marks.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - I Kaur - Full Document

Lite Bite Travel Foods Private Limited vs The Registrar Of Trademarks on 18 January, 2023

In Lite Bite Travel Foods (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 296, it has been held that the existence, or likelihood of confusion is an issue of fact. Until and unless, on facts, it is established that, owing to identity / similarity of the mark of which registration is sought, and of the goods / services covered thereby, with an earlier mark, there is likelihood of confusion / association in the mind of the public, registration cannot be refused on that ground.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1