Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)The Designs Act, 2000
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 14 March, 2000
17. Dr Saraf relies on the decision of the
Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co Ltd
14
v Rajendra Singh & Ors where the Supreme
Court in paragraph 16 said in the context of an
Insurance Court that no Court or Tribunal is
powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced
that (and now I am using the words of the
Supreme Court) "the order was wangled through
fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension
as would affect the very basis of the claim".
Chandrakant Sahu vs Coal India Limited 47 Wa/48/2018 Indra ... on 10 December, 2019
12. Mr. Jain relied upon the judgment reported in (2002) SCC 65
(Laxmikant V. Patel -vs- Chetanbhai Shah and Another) and
submitted that in an action for passing-off is an essential to seek an
injunction. The principles for grant of injunction are the same as in the
case of any other action against injury complained of. He submits that
in the present case, the plaintiff has proved the prima facie case,
balance of convenience and inconvenience and suffering from
irreparable injury.
James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. vs The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. on 16 March, 1951
15. In James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. v. The National Sewing Thread
Co., reported in AIR 1951 Bom 147, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court held that what is important is to find out what is
an essential feature of the trade mark already registered and what is
the main feature or idea under-lying such trade mark, and ascertain if
the trade mark whose registered contains the same distinguishing or
essential feature or conveys the same idea. The relevant question to be
asked is, what would be the salient feature of the trade mark which
would lead the purchaser to associate the particular goods with that
trade mark?
Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959
16. In Corn. Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products
Ltd. reported in AIR 1960 SC 142, it was held that "Glucovita" and
"Gluvita" were deceptively similar while observing that in deciding
question of similarities between two marks. The approach must be from
the point of view of a man of average knowledge and imperfect
recollection. To such a person, the overall structural and phonetic
17
similarity and the similarity of the idea in the two marks are reasonably
likely to cause confusion between them.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969
In F. Hoffimann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners & Co.
Private Ltd. reported in (1969) 2 SCC 716 : AIR 1970 SC 2062, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that marks must be compared as a whole.
The true test is whether the totality of the trade mark is such that it is
likely to cause deception, confusion, or mistakes in the minds of the
persons accustomed to the existing trade mark. It is held that
microscopic examination is not necessary. Both tests, visually and
phonetic, must be applied.
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. and Co., Mysore reported in (1972)
1 SCC 618 : AIR 1972 SC 1359 that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that what must be considered are the broad and essential features of
two trademarks, which should be placed side by side in order to find
out any differences in design. It is enough if the impugned trade mark
bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as it would be
18
likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one, to accept the other
if offered to him. Each case must be judged on its own features, and it
would be of no use to note how many points there were in similarity
and how many others there were in the absence of it.
Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. vs B. Vijaya Sai on 19 January, 2022
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent judgment in the case
of Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai reported
in (2022) 5 SCC 1 has held that in action for infringement, once it is
found that the defendant's trade mark was identical with the plaintiff's
registered trade mark, the Court could not have gone into an enquiry
whether the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or cause
confusion. In an infringement action, an injunction would be issued as
soon as it is proved that the defendant is improperly using the trade
mark of the plaintiffs. It is held that the question to be asked in an
infringement action is as to whether the defendant is using a mark
which is the same as or which is a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's
registered trade mark. It is held that though the get-up of the
defendant's goods may be so different from the plaintiff's goods and the
prices may also be so different that there would be no probability of
deception of the public, nevertheless, even in such cases, i.e. in an
infringement action, an injunction would be issued as soon as it is
proved that the defendant is improperly using the plaintiff's mark. It is
not necessary to prove actual deception or any actual damage.
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
The three
judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Cadila Health Care (supra)
has held that the principle of phonetic similarity is to be jettisoned
when the manner in which the words are written.
1