Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Allergan Inc vs Milment Oftho Industries And Ors. on 6 November, 1997
In Allergan Inc (supra), the appellant and respondent were both
manufacturing medicinal preparations relating to the eye under the mark
„Ocuflox‟. The Supreme Court in Para 9 observed "In the present case, the
marks are the same. They are in respect of pharmaceutical products. The
CS(OS) No. 157/2010 Page 15 of 18
mere fact that the Respondents have not been using the mark in India would
be irrelevant if they were first in the world market. The Division Bench had
relied upon material which prima-facie shows that the Respondents product
was advertised before the Appellants entered the field. On the basis of that
material the Division Bench has concluded that the Respondents were first
to adopt the mark. If that be so then no fault can be found with the
conclusion drawn by the Division Bench."
Caesar Park Hotels And Resorts Inc. vs Westinn Hospitality Services Ltd. on 19 June, 1998
In Caesar Park (supra), it was held that if the plaintiffs
have customers in a country, it can be presumed that they enjoy a reputation
in that country. Owing to the fact that Indians could access the plaintiff no
2‟s services through its website as far back as in 1998, I am of the view that
the same is sufficient to constitute prior use. By virtue of Section 28 of the
Act, a registered proprietor of the trademark has the exclusive right to the
use of the trademark in relation to the goods and services in respect of which
the trademark is registered and to obtain relief against infringement of the
trademark.
Ellora Industries vs Banarsi Das Goela And Ors. on 19 October, 1979
In support of the
CS(OS) No. 157/2010 Page 10 of 18
aforesaid submission, learned counsel relies on the decision in B.K
Engineering v. U.B.H.T. Enterprises, AIR 1985 Del 210 and Ellora
Industries v. Banaraasi Das, AIR 1980 Del 254.
Time Incorporated vs Lokesh Srivastava And Anr. on 3 January, 2005
Learned counsel submits that in Time Incorporated (supra), a
decree of Rs. 5 lacs on account of damages to goodwill and reputation and
Rs 5 lacs on account of punitive damages were awarded to the plaintiff, as
far back as the year 2005. It is submitted that the prayer of the plaintiffs in
the present suit for award of damages worth Rs. 20,05,5000 is fair, keeping
in mind that even as far back as eight years ago, courts were inclined to
grant damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs.
N.R. Dongre And Ors. vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr. on 21 April, 1995
In N.R. Dongre (supra), a Division Bench of this court held
"dissemination of knowledge of a trademark in respect of a product through
advertisement in media amounts to use of the trademark whether or not the
advertisement is coupled with the actual existence of the product in the
market". Besides being featured in international magazines as mentioned
hereinabove, the plaintiff no 2 has also been covered by several leading
Indian publications. Exhibit PW1/25 is an article dated 06.12.2004 from
"The Times of India" stating that the plaintiff no 2 seeks to expand its
operations to India. The aforesaid coverage of the plaintiff in Indian news
and media clearly demonstrates that the reputation of the plaintiff had
successfully spilled over into India.
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs Shree Assuramji Scooters on 29 November, 2005
21. The next submission of learned counsel is that the defendants have
steered clear of the court so that this court cannot access the books of
accounts of the defendants to analyse the profits made by the defendants on
account of passing off its services as those of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel
submits that the plaintiff‟s are entitled to damages on account of the
defendant‟s infringement and passing off, of the suit trademark. On the
aspect of quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs, reliance is
placed on Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava & Anr, 2005 DLT (116)
599, Microsoft Corporation v. Mr. Yogesh Paprt & Anr., 2005 (118) DLT
CS(OS) No. 157/2010 Page 11 of 18
580 and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters, 2005 (125)
DLT 504.
Yahoo!, Inc. vs Akash Arora & Anr. on 19 February, 1999
In Yahoo.com v. Akash Arora, 1999 II AD(Delhi)229, it was
observed that "Therefore, it is obvious that where the parties are engaged in
common or overlapping fields of activity, the competition would take place.
If the two contesting parties are involved in the same line or similar line of
business, there is grave and immense possibility for confusion and deception
and, Therefore, there is probability of sufferance of damage."