Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Section 30 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Section 4 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dhawan And Anr. on 17 October, 1994
Whether the use of the numeral „8‟ by Carlsberg is in the
nature of a descriptive, and hence non-trademark use, or a
trademark use. The two are antithetical to each other and one
plea, if successful, must necessarily destroy the other. This
principle was enunciated by a Single Judge of this Court, in the
decision reported as 57 (1995) DLT 49 Automatic Electric vs.
R.K.Dhawan in the following words:-
Khoday Distilleries Limited (Now Known ... vs The Scotch Whisky Association And ... on 27 May, 2008
In paragraph 56 onwards, the learned Single Judge
has discussed the issue in the context of passing off and by
applying the test of identity of composition, identity of
consumers, price ranges, consuming public, the goods being of
different composition i.e. beer versus wine and the price
differentiation, and with reference to the decision of the
Supreme Court reported as 2008 (10) SCC 723 Khoday
Distilleries Ltd. vs. Scotch Whisky Association & Ors. , has
opined that notwithstanding commonality in the trade channel,
it could not be prima facie established that there was
likelihood of deception and goods of Carlsberg being passed
off as goods of Radico.
Section 28 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000
"In the present case, three tests have to be applied.
The first one is this: Is there any special aspect of
the common feature which has been copied? The
second test will be with reference to the mode in
which the parts are put together differently? That is
to say whether the dissimilarity of the part or parts
is enough to mark the whole thing dissimilar (Kerly
para 17.17 referred to above). The third test is
whether when there are common elements, should
one not pay more regard to the parts which are not
common, while at the same time not disregarding
the common parts?"
Colgate Palmolive Co. Limited And Anr. vs Mr. Patel And Anr. on 6 October, 2005
41. For similar reasons, this Court, in the decision
reported as 2005 (31) PTC 583 (Del) Colgate Palmolive vs.
Patel in para 19, held that the „red-and-white‟ colour scheme
of the „COLGATE‟ brand without the addition of the mark
„COLGATE‟ could not be said to be a feature so essential to the
trademark so as to entitle Radico therein to urge passing off
by the mere adoption of the „red-and-white‟ colour scheme by
someone else.