Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.24 seconds)
This Application Under Order Xiv Rule 8 ... vs Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. And Another [1999 Ptc ... on 11 November, 2011 cites

R. Gopalakrishnan vs M/S. Venkateshwara Camphor Works ... on 31 August, 2000

41 The reliance was thereafter placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of R.Gopalakrishnan vs Venkateswara Camphor Works [2001 PTC (Mad) 233] wherein this Court was pleased to lay down, that when two marks are deceptively similar, then intention to deceive need not be proved, as where the get-up and collocation of the words and colour are not purely accidental but the sequence of the words and placement are identical, there is infringement entitling the plaintiff to get an injunction against the defendant.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - P Sridevan - Full Document

R.G Anand vs M/S. Delux Films & Ors on 18 August, 1978

43 The reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of R.G.Anand vs. Delux Films and others [PTC (Suppl)(1) (Del)(DB) 412] wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, was pleased to lay down that for taking action under the Copyright Act, what is perceived is not thought or information, but the original expresion of thought or information to some concrete form and therefore, it is an infringement only if the defendant makes an unlawful use of the form to which the thought or information is expressed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 83 - S M Ali - Full Document

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

48 The learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. [PTC (Suppl)(1) (SC) 175] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that use of "Rustam India" is deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered mark "Ruston" which entitled the plaintiff to initiate action for infringement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to lay down in the said case that in an action for infringement, the question is whether the defendant is selling goods so marked as designed to lead the purchaser to believe that they are that of the plaintiff's, but in an infringement action, the issue is whether the defendant is using a mark which is same or colourable imitation of plaintiff's registered trademark.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 289 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972

50 The reliance was thereafter placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. vs. I.P. & Co., Mysore [A.I.R. 1972 SC 1359] wherein it is laid down, that the test for determination of a trademark to be deceptively similar to the registered one would be, if a person is likely to accept the another one, if offered, instead of original one. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 293 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next