Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.65 seconds)
R. Gopalakrishnan vs M/S. Venkateshwara Camphor Works ... on 31 August, 2000 cites

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

17. Then again in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, , the Supreme Court while holding that the resemblance could be phonetic, visual or in the basic idea. But the object of the enquiry in ultimate analysis is whether the mark used by the defendant on the whole is deceptively similar to that of the registered mark of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 512 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

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

In the decision reported in Parle Products (P) Ltd.. v. J.P. & Co.. Mysore, again the question of deceptive similarity was considered. In that case the trial Court had meticulously examined the features found on the two wrappers of the biscuit packets and took the view that there were greater points of dissimilarity than similarity. This was confirmed by the High Court which held that the similarity was not such as to deceive an ordinary purchaser of biscuits. The Supreme Court set aside this finding though it was a concurrent finding of fact and said, "It is therefore, clear that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered, They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. In this case we find that the packets are practically of the same size, the colour scheme of the two wrappers is almost the same; the design on both though not identical bears such a close resemblance that one can easily be mistaken for the other."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 293 - Full Document

National Match Works, Sivakasi vs S.T. Karuppanna Nadar (Died) And Ors. on 15 April, 1978

In the decision reported in National Match Works v. S.T. Karuppanna Nadar (died) and others, , the test and proof of deceptive similarity was considered and the Court held, "... In order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and, if so, whether they are of such a character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered trade mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. Proof of actual deception is not necessary."
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 19 June, 1998

In the case reported in Indo-pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.. v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceutical Ltd,. 1998 (2) L.W. 646, the plaintiff's products was in the form of syrup packed in bottles and the defendant's was in the form of capsules packed in cardboard boxes. The only grievance was in use of the trademark 'ENERJASE' as aganist the plaintiffs trademark 'ENERJEX'. Since the common feature 'ENERJ' was held to publici juris, this Court refused to grant injunction.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 38 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

The Southern Indian Mills Co. Ld. ... vs Burn And Co. Ld. And Ors. on 16 August, 1912

In the decision reported in Tavener Rut ledge Ld. v. Specters Ld. 1959 RPC 355, which is a judgment given by the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff was a sweet manufacturer and though there were certain differences in the mark of the defendant, the Chancery Division, whose decision (1969 RPC 83) the Court of Appeal confirmed held, that, " I think they wanted to get something equally striking and perhaps as near to that as they felt they could go without as they thought breaking the law and they cannot complain of being held to have done the Act deliberately if the course adopted by them terms out to be the wrong side of the line".
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969

14. One of the leading cases, which was decided by the Supreme Court reported in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co. and another, , though the respondent pointed out that there were differences in the marks and also that the figures of two Goddesses are not identical and there is no scope of confusion, this Court held that even though there is no visual resemblance between the two marks related to Ambal snuff and Sri Andal snuff, the close affinity of sound would establish deception and the majority of customers were not capable of understanding the meanings of the two words.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 153 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1   2 Next