Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt Ltd vs Procter & Gamble Manufacturing ... on 9 May, 2014
20. Counsel for the plaintiff has correctly placed reliance on the judgment
of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anchor Health and Beauty Care
Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. and Ors.,
MANU/DE/1156/2014, wherein it was held that where the defendants
themselves have applied for registration of a mark, they cannot take a
contrary stand that the aforesaid mark is descriptive. The defendant cannot
be permitted to approbate and reprobate. In the present case also, once the
defendant in the Notice of Opposition has taken a stand that the goods of the
plaintiff and defendant are similar or allied, they cannot now be permitted to
take a stand that the goods of the plaintiff and the defendant are different.
M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk ... on 26 July, 2018
21. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgement of the
Supreme Court of India in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative
Milk Producers Federation Ltd., MANU/SC/0779/2018, in support of his
contention that the "VIBGYOR" mark is being used in relation to different
products. However, this judgement would not come to the aid of the
defendant in view of the stand taken by the defendant that the goods of the
plaintiff and the defendant are similar and allied. Further, in the present case,
there is a similarity between the goods/services of the plaintiff and the
defendant, inasmuch as the plaintiff uses the aforesaid mark in relation to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AMIT
BANSAL
CS(COMM) 573/2022 Page
Signing 8 of 11 16:43:01
Date:10.04.2023
2023:DHC:2419
education and educational services, including books to be used in the
schools, whereas the defendant uses it in relation to books in the field of
education. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no similarity between the
two.
Vintage Distillers Limited vs Ramesh Chand Parekh on 16 November, 2022
22. It has been further contended on behalf of the defendant that the
plaintiff has not filed proof of user of the aforesaid trademark in support of
books. Even if that be so, the remedy of the defendant would be to seek
rectification of the mark on the ground of non-user. Reference in this regard
may be made to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Vintage Distillers Limited v. Ramesh Chand Parekh,
MANU/DE/4587/2022, wherein it was held that a plaintiff, being the
registered proprietor of the mark, had an exclusive right to use the same and
the right to sue for infringement was not dependent on the use of the mark
by such registered proprietor.
1