cites: 46516630

Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001

In Cadila Health Care Ltd., case (supra) the Honourable Apex Court has held that where common marks are included in the rival trade marks, more regard is to be paid to the parts not common and the proper course is to look at the marks as a whole, but at the same time not to disregard the parts which are common.

Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

B.K. Engineering Co. vs Ubhi Enterprises (Registered) And Anr. on 12 November, 1984

In the judgment of the Delhi High Court in B.K. Engineers case (supra) the Delhi High Court has held that use of trademark "B.K.-81" as against the plaintiff's house mark/trade name "B.K." the plaint would have deception thereby protect the mark of the plaintiff.

Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

Aktiebolaget Skf A Company Organised ... vs B.N. Mondal, G.N. Mondal, P.N. Mondal, ... on 15 February, 2008

In Aktiebolaget SKF's case (supra) it is also held that the trademark of the defendant appears to be colourable imitation of the registered trade mark the adoption of the trade mark is dishonest.

Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

S. Mehar Singh vs M.L. Gupta & Co. on 30 May, 1997

29. The Honourable Supreme Court in S.Syed Mohideen's case (supra) has held that when there are two registered owners exclusive right to use trademark shall not be deemed to have been acquired by one registrant as against the other registered owner of the trade mark.

Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited & Anr vs Mnm Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 31 July, 2014

7. Mahindra & Mahindra v. MNM Marketing

Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Vit University vs Bagaria Education Trust on 1 June, 2015

In VIT University case (supra) this Court has also upheld to protect the mark VIT the abbreviation form of the educational institutions as against the defendant who have also adopted the similar trademark in the abbreviation form of the Vivekananda Institution of Technology.

Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - R Subbiah - Full Document

M/S.Bharat N.Parikh And Rajen A.Kamdar vs M/S.Ashok Tripathy on 6 September, 2006

1. Bharat N. Parikh and Ors. v. Ashok Tripathy Trading as Ashlok [2003 (33) PTC 587 (Mad)]

Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S.V.V.V & Sons Edible Oils Ltd vs Sri Anjaneya Detergent on 29 January, 2019

28. Similarly, the other judgment relied on by the Applicant/Defendant in V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., case (supra) this Court has held as follows:

Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - M Sundar - Full Document

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

In F.Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd., case (Supra) the Apex Court has held that the marks must be compared as a whole, the true test being whether the totality of the proposed trademark is such that it is likely to cause deception or confusion or mistake in the minds of persons accustomed to the existing trade mark. Microscopic examination not called for. Both visual and phonetic tests must be applied.

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 197 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 5 November, 2015

In Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Case (supra) this Court 25/31 http://www.judis.nic.in A.Nos.5616, 5617, 5618 of 2016,364 of 2018 and 5012 of 2019 in C.S.No.754 of 2012 has hled that the conflicting composition marks must be compared in their entireties.

Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 6 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results