Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft And ... vs Cello Pens Pvt.Ltd. And Anr on 3 September, 2015 cites

M/S. Kemp & Company & Another vs M/S. Prima Plastics Ltd. on 18 September, 1998

22. I also do not see how the decision in Kemp and Company & Ors. v Prima Plastics Ltd.14 can be said to be of any possible assistance to Mr. Kane. Citing Copinger and Stone James on Copyright, the Court held that a mere copy is not per se a false representation. The plaintiff must show more than a mere copy or a mere similarity. Where an article is fashioned in an unusual way to lend it a distinctive appearance characteristic of one party's product range and that party can establish a reputation acquired over some appreciable time, then putting a virtually indistinguishable copy or replica of it in the market complete with these uniquely identifying and distinguishing features would amount to a misrepresentation that the rival product too emanated from the claimant.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 21 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Gorbatschow Wodka Kg vs John Distilleries Limited on 2 May, 2011

21. Another learned Single Judge of this Court (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J as he then was) also considered this issue in Gorbatschow Wodka KG v John Distilleries Ltd. 11 He reiterated the well settled principles that a Court must have due regard to the overall impact of the rival marks or goods and that the law recognized the importance of the shape in which a trader chooses to sell his goods.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 47 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft vs Pikpen (P.) Ltd. on 13 February, 2004

Faber Castell Aktiengesellschaft v. Pikpen (P.) Ltd.16 It was in relation to Faber-Castell's highlighter or text liner markers. Bobde J set out the unique features of the plaintiffs' product. After considering the various provisions of law, he granted the injunction. While doing so, he considered certain defences that have echoes in the defences taken by Mr. Kane before me. One of these defences taken before Bobde J was that the design was previously published. In that case, of course, the submission was that the design registration was liable to be cancelled. This is precisely Mr. Kane's formulation here and a statement is made that Cello has indeed filed an application for cancellation as well. That is a separate matter that will take its own 14 (2000) PTC 96 15 S.A. Bobde J., as he then was 16 2003 (27) PTC 538 (Bom) 17 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2015 23:55:53 ::: 201-NMSL1824-15-FABER-CASTELL-F.DOC course but that is not in itself a reason to deny relief on the ground of passing off if a sufficient cause has been made out. Bobde J also addressed the question of whether the plaintiffs' goods taken as a whole could be said to have nothing so distinctive about them as to uniquely identify them as goods of the plaintiffs. The two products
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - D G Karnik - Full Document
1