Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (1.57 seconds)Section 2 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Pidilite Industries Ltd. vs S.M. Associates And Ors. on 10 February, 2003
44. Similarly, in the case of Pidilite Industries Limited vs. Riya
Chemy (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench following the decision in the case
of Pidilite vs. S. M. Associates (supra), noted that while comparing the
rival marks, attention is to be given to the common features rather than
the differences in essential features and that trivial and non distinctive
matters do not sufficiently distinguish the rival mark.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra Trading As J.K. ... on 3 November, 2023
In case of Pernord Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. vs Karanveer Singh
Chhabra(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Para 32.3 as under:
Ultra Tech Cement Limited vs Alaknanda Cement Pvt.Ltd. And Another on 28 June, 2011
47. The provisions of Sub Section 2(a) (i) and (ii) and Sub Section 2(b)
of Section 17 were considered in the decision of Ultratech Cement Ltd
vs Alaknanda Cement Pvt Ltd (supra),where the rival marks were
Ultratech Cement vs Ultratuff Cement. The Court held that the
Vishal Parekar 31/36
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2025 21:01:54 :::
ial-28667-2025.doc
registration of the Plaintiff's mark without any disclaimer shows that
the word Ultratech is distinctive mark and though Ultratech is not
separately registered, the same being distinctive is not hit by Section
17(2).
Section 134 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 62 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Jagdish Gopal Kamath And Others vs Lime & Chilli Hospitality Services P. ... on 22 April, 2013
51. The Defendants have not placed any cogent material on record to
show that the marks are non distinctive and common to the trade. There
is not even a Reply Affidavit on record so to speak. The written
submissions sans any material is insufficient to prove such extensive use
of the word Jasmine and Hair and Care that by reason of that wide
usage, the words have passed into the realm of generic to the extent
that they can no longer be said to describe any particular purveyor or
Vishal Parekar 33/36
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2025 21:01:54 :::
ial-28667-2025.doc
user. [See Jagdish Gopal Kamath & Ors vs Lime & Chilli Hospitality
Services (supra)]. The defense of the marks, being publici juris and
common to the trade dis-entitling the Plaintiff to seek any exclusive
right in view of Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 must fail.
Pidilite Industries Limited vs Riya Chemy on 11 November, 2022
44. Similarly, in the case of Pidilite Industries Limited vs. Riya
Chemy (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench following the decision in the case
of Pidilite vs. S. M. Associates (supra), noted that while comparing the
rival marks, attention is to be given to the common features rather than
the differences in essential features and that trivial and non distinctive
matters do not sufficiently distinguish the rival mark.
M/S Bengal Waterproof Limited vs M/S Bombay Waterproof ... on 18 November, 1996
22. Getting the aspect of the suit being barred by limitation out of
the way first, the infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing off
gives rise to recurring cause of action to the Plaintiff. [See Bengal
Waterproof Limited vs Bombay Water proof Manufacturing Company
& Another(supra)]