Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.29 seconds)Section 43 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Baker Hughes Ltd. And Anr. vs Hiroo Khushlani And Anr. on 16 July, 2004
17. By pointing out that he is relying upon the sales turnover only
of the Plaintiffs' Suit Products, learned counsel submitted that the get up and
trade dress are inextricably linked to the products and, therefore, the
turnover represents the value of the trade dress and get up. With regard to
turnover, he referred to the cross-examination of PW1, at pages 174, 176
and 180 of the typed set of pleadings, and the cross-examination of PW2 at
pages 191 and 192. By referring to the cross-examination of PW1, he
pointed out that PW1 had confirmed that the plaintiffs undertake direct sales
but that their sellers also sell through retail outlets and also through e-tail.
By referring to the judgment in Baker Hughes v. Hiroo Khushalani of the
Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, respectively, which were reported in
1998 (18) PTC 580 and 2004 (29) PTC 153, respectively, he relied upon the
principle of initial interest confusion.
National Bell Co. & Anr vs Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr on 18 March, 1970
(1) National Bell v. Metal Goods Mfg. Co., AIR 1971 SC 898,
particularly paragraph 17.
Himalaya Drug Co. vs Sbl Limited on 3 June, 2010
(2) Himalaya Drug Co. v. SBL (53) PTC 1 (Del.) (DB),
particularly paragraph 49.
Shri Pankaj Goel vs M/S. Dabur India Ltd. on 4 July, 2008
(3) Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd. 2008 (38) PTC 49,
particularly paragraphs 22 and 23.
Mrs. Ishi Khosla vs Anil Aggarwal And Anr. on 25 January, 2007
20. Learned counsel concluded his submissions by referring to and
relying upon the following judgments for the proposition that an injunction
must follow if the Court finds that the defendant acted dishonestly: (1) Ishi
Khosla v. Anil Aggarwal, 2007 (34) PTC 370; (2) Midas Hygiene v.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.13 of 52
C.S.No.828 of 2015
Sudhir Bhatia (2004) 3 SCC 90; and (3) T.V.Venugopal v. Ushodaya
Enterprises (2011) 4 SCC 85.
T.V. Venogopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr on 3 March, 2011
20. Learned counsel concluded his submissions by referring to and
relying upon the following judgments for the proposition that an injunction
must follow if the Court finds that the defendant acted dishonestly: (1) Ishi
Khosla v. Anil Aggarwal, 2007 (34) PTC 370; (2) Midas Hygiene v.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.13 of 52
C.S.No.828 of 2015
Sudhir Bhatia (2004) 3 SCC 90; and (3) T.V.Venugopal v. Ushodaya
Enterprises (2011) 4 SCC 85.
S.Syed Mohideen vs P.Sulochana Bai on 7 June, 2013
25. After distinguishing the judgments on which the defendant
relied, learned counsel for the plaintiffs placed reliance on additional
judgments. By referring to paragraphs 31.1, 31.2 and 32.1 of the judgment
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.17 of 52
C.S.No.828 of 2015
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Syed Mohideen v. P.Sulochana Bai,
(2016) SCC 683, he submitted that it was held therein that passing off can
be claimed even in respect of an unregistrable mark.
Carlsberg Breweries A/S vs Som Distilleries And Breweries Limited on 2 May, 2017
By relying on the
judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mohan Lal v. Sona
Paints (FB) (Mohan Lal), 2013 (55) PTC 61, particularly paragraphs 20.2,
22, 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.8, 32.1 & 34 thereof, he submitted that the
conclusion of the Full Bench that protection may be granted both under
design law and the common law of passing off was upheld by the
subsequent larger Bench in Carlsberg Breweries v. Som
Distilleries(Carlsberg), 2019 (77) PTC 1 Del FB. He also relied on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Z Engineering,
AIR 1970 SC 1649, on the law of passing off.