Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.85 seconds)Section 12 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 124 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 8 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S Liberty Footwear Company vs Liberty Innovative Outfits Limited on 26 May, 2020
26. The test of deceptive similarity and confusion under Section 9(2) (a)
and 11(2) of the TM Act are identical to the test laid down under Section
29(1) and (2) of the TM Act. The decision in Nandhini Deluxe (supra) has
been applied by various High Courts in context of infringement suits e.g.
Technova Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Technova Imaging System (P) Limited
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
CS (COMM) 60/2020 Page
MUKTA16 of 41
GUPTA
Signing Date:09.09.2020
12:07:08
MANU/TN.0959/209 and Liberty Footwear Company vs. Liberty Innovative
Outfits Limited and Ors, MANU/DE/1105/2020: CS (COMM) 637/2019 of
the Delhi High Court decided on 26th May, 2020.
Oswal Fats And Oils Ltd vs Addl.Commnr.,Bareilly Division & Ors on 1 April, 2010
In the decision reported as 2010 (4) SCC 728 Oswal Fats and Oils
Limited vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division,
Bareilly & Ors. the Supreme dealing with the solemn obligation of the
parties to disclose all the facts held:
Charanjit Thukral & Anr. vs Deepak Thukral & Anr. on 29 July, 2010
In the decision reported as MANU/DE/1814/2510 Charanjit Thukral
& Ors. vs. Deepak Thukral & Ors. this Court following the decision of the
Supreme Court reported as 2010 (2) SC 114 Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P.
and Ors. held:
Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (L&T;) vs Lachmi Narain Trades And Ors on 31 August, 2015
This Court noting the test laid down in Larsen and
Toubro Ltd. vs. Lachmi Narain Trades and Ors., 2008 (36) PTC 223 (Del)
(DB) noted that the question was of one of the real likelihood of confusion
or deception or deception amongst the customers and the resultant damages
to the plaintiff. As noted above in the present case plaintiff has not been
able to any single instance of confusion qua the products of the plaintiff and
defendant except geysers because the goods of the plaintiffs and defendants
though home appliances are different products and the plaintiff though
having subsequent registration for the same class has not till date
manufactured or sold water filters, water purifiers and RO systems.