Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)
Max Healthcare Institute Limited vs Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr on 25 September, 2024
cites
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Max Healthcare Institute Ltd vs Sahrudya Health Care Pvt. Ltd on 4 July, 2019
4. Of equal significance are the following observations rendered
by this Court in Max Healthcare Instituted Ltd. Vs. Sahrudya
Healthcare Pvt. Ltd 1.:-
Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dgawan & Anr. on 6 January, 1999
The consistent view of this Court in Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K.
Dhawan (1999) 77 DLT 292, The Indians Hotel Company
Ltd. v. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science and Culture (2008) 37 PTC
468 (Del) (DB), Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter
& Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. 2014 SCC OnLine Del
2968, appeal preferred whereagainst was dismissed vide judgment
reported as Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co.
Ltd. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 211 DLT
466 (DB) and SLP(C) No. 15928-15929/2014 preferred where
against were dismissed on 3rd July, 2014, and Vega Auto
Accessories (P) Ltd. v. S.K. Jain Bros Helmet (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2018
SCC OnLine Del 9381 has been that a defendant who has itself
applied for registration of a mark is stopped from contending the
mark to be not registrable, when faced with an action for
infringement. The said argument is thus not available to the
defendant.
H&M; Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr vs Hm Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 31 May, 2018
F. The mere fact that others, also providing hospital/healthcare
services may be using the word MAX is no ground for depriving
the plaintiff of injunction against the defendant if otherwise a case
therefor is made out. I have in Sunil Mittal v. Darzi On Call(2017)
242 DLT 62, Insecticides (India) Ltd. v. Parijat Industries (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 252 DLT 129, H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB v. HM
Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9369 and Purshotam
Keshwani v. Nishant Mitrasen Mahimtura 2019 SCC OnLine Del
7392 held that the owner of a registered trade mark is not expected
to indulge in the business of litigation of suing each and every
person adopting the same/similar mark, irrespective of impact
thereof on the business of the plaintiff. It is in the discretion of a
plaintiff, whom to sue and whom not to sue and merely because a
plaintiff in a suit for infringement of trade mark has not sued
another, is no ground to defeat the suit against the infringer against
whom the plaintiff has chosen to act.
M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. ... vs Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. on 1 July, 2014
Mention in this context can be made
of Janki MAX and MAX Centre for Liver & Biliary Sciences also.
The same would be the position of others. Again, I have wondered
whether the legislators of Trademarks Act providing for
registration of label/device marks can be presumed to be ignorant
of human psychology and/or the way the human mind perceives
such marks. The answer is again no. It has been held in Allied
Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt.
Ltd. (2014) 211 DLT 346 affirmed by the Division Bench in Shree
Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt.
Ltd. (2015) 221 DLT 359, Prathiba M. Singh v. Singh &
Associates 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1982 and Gillette Company
LLC v. Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 251 DLT 530 that the
test for infringement of a label/word mark is the test of prominent
word of the mark.
Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt. ... on 6 July, 2015
Mention in this context can be made
of Janki MAX and MAX Centre for Liver & Biliary Sciences also.
The same would be the position of others. Again, I have wondered
whether the legislators of Trademarks Act providing for
registration of label/device marks can be presumed to be ignorant
of human psychology and/or the way the human mind perceives
such marks. The answer is again no. It has been held in Allied
Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt.
Ltd. (2014) 211 DLT 346 affirmed by the Division Bench in Shree
Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt.
Ltd. (2015) 221 DLT 359, Prathiba M. Singh v. Singh &
Associates 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1982 and Gillette Company
LLC v. Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 251 DLT 530 that the
test for infringement of a label/word mark is the test of prominent
word of the mark.
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors on 29 August, 2006
Besides the judgment cited by the senior counsel
for the plaintiff, mention may be made of Ramdev Food Products
(P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel (2006) 8 SCC 726where it
has been held that adoption by the defendant of a prominent word
in the label/device mark of the plaintiff amounts to infringement.
The label/device marks may be of different kinds. Those with
words only as prominent part thereof with a not so prominent
device, have in Keshav Kumar Aggarwalv.
Jagdish Gopal Kamath And Others vs Lime & Chilli Hospitality Services P. ... on 22 April, 2013
NIIT Ltd. (2013) 199
DLT 242, Jagdish Gopal Kamath v. Lime & Chilli Hospitality
Services 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 531, Mallcom (India)
Ltd. v. Rakesh Kumar 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7646 and New
Balance Athletics, INC v. Apex Shoe Company Pvt. Ltd. 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 7393, appeal preferred whereagainst was dismissed
vide order dated 26th March, 2019 in FAO(OS) (COMM) No.
59/2019 titled Apex Shoe Company Pvt. Ltd. v. New Balance
Athletics, INC, held to be infringed by the defendant who in his
label/device adopts the same word/s by making only variation in
the not so prominent device. The nature of business/services also
are of several kind. A label/device mark in relation to some
businesses, as of textile and/or prints, may invite the attention of
This is a digitally signed order.
Insecticides (India) Limited vs Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd on 9 July, 2018
F. The mere fact that others, also providing hospital/healthcare
services may be using the word MAX is no ground for depriving
the plaintiff of injunction against the defendant if otherwise a case
therefor is made out. I have in Sunil Mittal v. Darzi On Call(2017)
242 DLT 62, Insecticides (India) Ltd. v. Parijat Industries (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 252 DLT 129, H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB v. HM
Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9369 and Purshotam
Keshwani v. Nishant Mitrasen Mahimtura 2019 SCC OnLine Del
7392 held that the owner of a registered trade mark is not expected
to indulge in the business of litigation of suing each and every
person adopting the same/similar mark, irrespective of impact
thereof on the business of the plaintiff. It is in the discretion of a
plaintiff, whom to sue and whom not to sue and merely because a
plaintiff in a suit for infringement of trade mark has not sued
another, is no ground to defeat the suit against the infringer against
whom the plaintiff has chosen to act.