Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.88 seconds)

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

18. But even there, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not properly applying well-established principles of law and particularly the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., , though the said judgment has been referred to in the order. The learned Single Judge was also not right in giving undue importance to the fact that the drug in question was a Scheduled Drug and that it can be sold only on prescription of a doctor. Judicial notice has been taken by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court that realities of life cannot be ignored by the Courts in dealing with such matters, and there is every likelihood of committing mistake not only by customers but also by chemists and doctors. It is a known fact that names of medicines are given on telephone and medicines are purchased on that basis. In the circumstances, there is probability, and in any case possibility, that a wrong medicine may be sold by a chemist which may have fatal or adverse effect on a patient. Had all these facts were appreciated in their proper perspective, the learned Single Judge would have granted injunction against the defendant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000

22. Allowing the Appeal and setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below, the Apex Court held that what was to be seen in the case of passing off action is the similarity between the competing marks and to determine whether there is likelihood of deception or causing confusion. Referring to S. M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2114 and overruling it, the Court held that the test that dissimilarity in essential features is more important than similarity is not proper and correct. Referring to several English, American and Indian cases on the point, it was observed that the Court must be careful to make allowance for imperfect recollection and the effect of careless pronunciation and speech on the part of persons seeking to buy under the trade description, as also shop-keepers ministering to personal wants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 150 - M J Rao - Full Document

N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

SCC 727 and N. R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, , and urged that often the test of deceptive similarity is of impression to the 'eye' and 'ear' of the Judge hearing the matter at the first instance and when on comparison of two marks, the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that they are not 'deceptively similar' and there is no likelihood of confusion, the same may be given due weight.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 347 - Full Document
1