Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.54 seconds)
Kamal Kant And Company Llp vs Raashee Fragrances India Pvt. Ltd. on 4 November, 2015 cites

Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001

11. No doubt, the tests of passing off/infringement are the same as held in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ruston & Hornsby CS(OS) No.1471/2015 Page 14 of 17 Ltd. (supra), but the facts of the present case show that these tests of passing off which are laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. (supra) are satisfied by the plaintiff that goods of the defendant if sold under the trade mark/word mark RAASHEE will result in passing off of the goods of the defendant as the goods of the plaintiff. Merely because the actual meaning of the word mark/trade mark of the defendant is different than the meaning of the trade mark/word mark of the plaintiff, will not mean that there will not be visual and phonetic similarity with respect to the impugned trade mark with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff as the subject products are to be purchased with reference to the trade marks and not the labels.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969

11. No doubt, the tests of passing off/infringement are the same as held in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ruston & Hornsby CS(OS) No.1471/2015 Page 14 of 17 Ltd. (supra), but the facts of the present case show that these tests of passing off which are laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. (supra) are satisfied by the plaintiff that goods of the defendant if sold under the trade mark/word mark RAASHEE will result in passing off of the goods of the defendant as the goods of the plaintiff. Merely because the actual meaning of the word mark/trade mark of the defendant is different than the meaning of the trade mark/word mark of the plaintiff, will not mean that there will not be visual and phonetic similarity with respect to the impugned trade mark with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff as the subject products are to be purchased with reference to the trade marks and not the labels.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 289 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

8. One is at this stage reminded of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma (supra) in para 28 of the judgment reproduced above, that, where the defendant's trade mark is so close either visually or phonetically or otherwise and the court reaches the conclusion that there is an imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that plaintiff's rights are violated. This judgment further goes on to observe that merely because the get-up, packing and other writing or marks on the goods or on the packets of the defendant show marked difference or indicate a trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor of the mark, such aspects would be immaterial in an action for infringement. As already stated above, since there is confusing similarity and deceptive similarity between the two marks, even the tests with respect CS(OS) No.1471/2015 Page 12 of 17 to passing off are satisfied by the plaintiff against the defendant in the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 512 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1