Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. vs Bharat Malik And Anr. on 18 April, 2001 cites

F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969

In F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manner & Co (P) Ltd., , the question was whether the word 'Dropovit' is deceptively similar or confusing to the word 'Protovit'. It was held that to arrive at the conclusion whether the phrase causes confusion or not the test of "Look" and "Sound" must be used. Since the pronunciation of D and P was wholly dissimilar to that of P and T, it was held that there is no reasonable probability of confusion from the visual or phonetic point of view. However, the sue of the word terminal syllable 'VIT' as suffix, it was held that the mark 'VIT' is both descriptive and common in trade. Even an average customer can know that in respect of vitamin preparation, the word 'VIT' occurs in a large number of trade marks and as such he can keep himself on guard against making any mistake. Thus there was no real tangible danger of confusion. The contention that the Dropovit is not a descriptive word was not accepted and it was held that "if it is not so then it must be held to be an invented word. It is carried out of two words, the resulting combination not reminding one of the original words unless he is told about it or he devotes some thought over it. It being an invented word was entitled to be registered as a trade mark."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 197 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

William Grant & Sons Ltd. vs Mcdowell & Compay Ltd. on 27 May, 1994

57. This Court in William Grant & Sons Ltd. vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1994 III Ad Delhi 65) had the occasion to opine on this proposition and dealt with the contention of the defendant that the defendant's product was priced differently, by stating "if this be so anybody who takes the defendant's whisky in India, or elsewhere from out of a bottle to which the label of the defendant, which is objected to by the plaintiff is affixed, would carry it in his mind and memory consciously or unconsciously and the inevitable result would be that the plaintiff's reputation would be impaired, gradually debased an goodwill diluted and what is distinctive, shall be eroded."
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 Next