Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)
Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited vs Ajay Kumar Sharma on 17 February, 2025 cites

Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004

18. A prima facie case for injuncting the Defendants 3 and 4 from using the impugned, and therefore exists. Inasmuch as continued use of the impugned marks is likely to further infringe and possibly dilute the plaintiff's brand value, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be in favour of grant of injunction as sought by the plaintiffs. Moreover, the Supreme Court has, in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd v. Sudhir Bhatia5 , held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 411 - Full Document

Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr vs Infinity Infoway Pvt Ltd & Ors on 13 October, 2023

4.4.2 Identical or Deceptively Similar Marks: The Mark used by respondent no.1 is phonetically, visually and aurally identical to the Applicant's mark 'SHRINATH'. The prominent use of the word "SHREENATH" in Mark is likely to deceive Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:29:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/RA/25/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined consumers into believing that there is a connection or association between the Respondent's services and those of the Applicant. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shrinath Travel Agency VS. INFINITY INFOWAY PVT LTD. held that the marks "SHREENATH" or "SHRINATH" used by the defendants therein Infringed the plaintiff's registered Trade Mark "SHRINATH". In fact, in the order dated 6/11/2023, the Delhi High Court in para 15 of the Order has narrated thus "The predominant feature of the impugned marks of Defendant 3 and 4 writes as 'SHREENATH' and Defendant 4 writes as 'SHRINATH', the slight difference in spelling makes no difference in the aspect of infringement as plaintiffs, holds a registration for the word mark Shrinath, per se. Besides infringement, it is trite, has to be examined from the point of view of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, and such a consumer is certainly unlikely to distinguish between the marks of the plaintiffs and Defendants 3 and 4, which are otherwise Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:29:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/RA/25/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined structurally similar merely because of the slight difference in spelling between 'SHRINATH'and 'SHREENATH'.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Bajaj Electricals Limited vs Gourav Bajaj And Anr on 3 March, 2020

4.4.3 Mala Fide Intent: Respondent No. 1, being part of the same industry, had prior knowledge about the existence of the Applicant 's mark Shrinath. Despite this knowledge, Respondent No. 1 proceeded to register a similar mark, demonstrate its mala fide intent to deceive the public and trade off the Applicant's reputation. Bombay High Court in the case of Bajaj Electricals Ltd. vs Gourav Bajaj and Anr. ; having similar facts of matter held that, "The Plaintiff was Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:29:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/RA/25/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined using the name and mark BAJAJ since 1961; BAJAJ has been recognized as a well-known mark, both by Courts as well as by Registry; Plaintiff has hundreds of registration for their mark BAJAJ and marks derived from BAJAJ issued in their favour; Plaintiffs turnover runs into crores; while examining the Defendants' mark, the Registrar has cited Plaintiff's marks. All these factors support the contention of the Plaintiff that the adoption and use by Defendants of their impugned name and mark is dishonest."
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document
1