Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Sanat Products Ltd. vs Glade Drugs And Nutraceuticals Pvt. ... on 4 November, 2003 cites

Fanner India Limited vs Salbros Enterprises Private Limited on 9 April, 1997

21. The fourth argument of counsel for defendant is that the proper court fee has not been paid. Plaintiff has maintained that the suit has been correctly valued and proper court fee has been paid but has submitted at the hearing that in case it is found that the court fee paid is deficient, the plaintiff undertakes to make it good. This is a question to be gone into and decided at appropriate stage and certainly not at the stage of grant of ad interim injunction application. The plaintiff cannot be denied ad interim injunction if it is entitled to it, till the question of court fee is decided. Since the defendant is raising this objection, proper court fee shall be determined in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. Therefore, principles of law laid down in the judgment of Fenner India Ltd. v. Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (supra), relied upon by the plaintiff may be taken into consideration at that stage.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - S K Mahajan - Full Document

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

In Cadila Health Care Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court has held that greater care to be exercised while dealing with a passing off action relating to the medicinal products. In the present case though the meaning of the word 'REFIRM' and 'REFORM' may be different, but they are constructively and phonetically similar so as to cause confusion and deception in the mind of an unwary customer like hospital administration, medical practitioners, doctors, nurses and even the dispenser, chemist and druggist which may lead to the sale of the medicine of the defendants in lieu of the medicine of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

Ciba Geigy Ltd. vs Sun Pharmaceutical Industries on 27 April, 1992

16. The judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Ciba-Geigy Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the defendant which laid down to the contrary cannot prevail and be followed. The Gujarat High Court has held that the medicinal preparation of the plaintiff and the defendant were, being Schedule 'H' drug, were available to the consumers only on prescription of a registered medical practitioner, so the plaintiff was not entitled to an ad interim injunction as prayed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. That decides the first objection of the defendants.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Bharat Enterprises (India) vs C. Lall Gopi Industrial Enterprises on 31 March, 1999

18. Counsel for defendants emphatically argued that the word 'REFORM' is a common and general word and there cannot be any restriction on the use of this word. In the written statement and reply to the application, defendants have repeatedly alleged that the defendants were selling its medicinal product under a descriptive mark or generic mark which cannot cause any confusion. But even a descriptive or a generic mark may sometimes become a trademark of a product so as to associate it with a particular manufacturer. Even the defendants themselves have filed an application for registration of the word 'REFORM' as trademark for its product. Counsel for defendants has referred to the judgment of this Court in Bharat Enterprises (India) v. C. Lall Gopi Industrial Enterprises and Ors., 1999 PTC (19) 598 where it was held that the plaintiff has to prove that his mark has become so distinctive that the public started associating it with the plaintiff and further to prove that the offending trademark was likely to deceive and cause confusion among the consumer. The trademarks involved in the case were 'Gopi Heat Pillar' and 'Belco Heat Pillar', both the products were room heaters. The court observed that the expression 'HEAT PILLAR' may be taken to be a generic word and all those room heaters which were so designed like a pillar are using the word 'Heat Pillar', so this expression cannot be confined to the respondents and the respondent cannot have exclusive right to use Heat Pillar for their own product. It was further observed that there was phonetic distinction between the words 'Belco' and 'Gopi', therefore, there was no cause of confusion. For this reason, the ad interim application was dismissed. But the facts of the present case are distinguishable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document

Century Traders vs Roshan Lal Duggar Co. on 27 April, 1977

17. From the pleading made in the plaint and the application by the plaintiff and the facts stated by the defendants in the reply to the application, clearly established that the plaintiff is prior in use of the trademark 'REFIRM' for sale of its medicinal product. The evidence which has been placed on record has prima facie established it. The Court in Century Traders (supra) has held that in an action for passing off in order to succeed in getting an interim injunction plaintiff has to establish user of the mark prior in point of time than the impugned user by the defendants. It was further held that the proof of actual damage or fraud is unnecessary in a passing off action whether the relief asked for is injunction alone or injunction, accounts and damages. If there is a likelihood of the offending trade mark invading the proprietory right, a case for injunction is made out.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 239 - Full Document

Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dgawan & Anr. on 6 January, 1999

In Automatic Electric Ltd. (supra) the competing trademarks were 'DIMMER DOT' and 'DIMMERSTAT. This Court held that the word 'DIMMER' may be a generic and descriptive word but since the plaintiff had been using the said trademark for a long period of time, user of deceptively similar trade mark by the defendants would necessarily cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. Second argument of counsel for defendants also is not tenable.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 93 - Full Document
1