Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.34 seconds)Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 2013
Section 29 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
2.10. The registration of the Impugned Mark, ' ' is
not a defence for an infringement action. Under Section 124(5)
of the Act this Court is empowered to grant interim injunction
even against a registered Trade Mark, if such registration violates
proprietary rights of an earlier Trade Mark. The judgments in Raj
Kumar v. Abott, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7708 (DB), Corza v.
Future Bath, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 153 (DB), Dr. Reddys v.
Fast Cure, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4953, Mankind Pharma v.
Sepkind 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8982 and National Insurance v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 held that an interim injunction
can be granted against the proprietor of a registered trade mark.
S. Syed Mohideen vs P. Sulochana Bai on 17 March, 2015
2.11. The Supreme Court in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochna (2016)
2 SCC 683 and N.R. Dongre v. Whirpool, (1996) 5 SCC 714,
have held that the defendant's trade mark registration is no
defence to the tort of passing off and the same is, therefore,
irrelevant. The proprietary right to a trade mark exists on account
of prior use and the registration merely amounts to recordal
thereof. If there is no prior use, there is no proprietary right, and
none can be conferred by the registration in respect of a Trade
Mark, which is likely to cause confusion or deception or whose
use is detrimental to reputation of an earlier trade mark.
2.12. The pleadings and evidence on record have established that
Plaintiffs' Marks have acquired formidable goodwill and
reputation as of 2018-19 in India, i.e., the purported and alleged
date of adoption by the Defendants. The annual sales during the
FY 2018-19 were to the tune of ₹4,32,20,00,000 in India. The
Plaintiffs have taken pain to promote the Plaintiffs' Marks in
Jharkhand and Bihar where Defendants are located, at least since
2007 by extensive activities under its rural program Arogya
Parivar. Therefore, the Defendants were well-aware of the
goodwill and reputation of Plaintiffs' Marks.
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
21. As has been pleaded by the Plaintiffs that the Defendants have not only
adopted a phonetically and visually deceptively similar Mark but also adopted
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 21 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
the Impugned Mark, ' ' which has been copied from the
Plaintiffs' Mark, ' ' in terms of colour
combination and placement of features. India being a multilingual country and
there being close phonetic similarity between the rival Marks, there are high
chances of slurring of the Mark 'NOVIETS' for 'NOVARTIS'. There exists
high likelihood of confusion and deception apart from likelihood of injurious
association in the minds of consumers. The Supreme Court in Cadilla
Healthcare (supra) has held that while judging deceptive similarity between
competing marks used in pharmaceutical sector, stricter approach is required.
The staff of the pharmacists and chemists are not always literate and the
handwriting of the doctors are often illegible, thus confusion and deception is
inevitable. Public interest supports lesser degree of proof showing confusing
similarity in the case of trade mark in respect of medicinal products as against
other non-medicinal products. Confusion between medicinal products may be
life threatening, not merely inconvenient and could have dire effect on public
health.
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
In cases of infringement and passing off of Trade Marks an injunction
must follow and as held in Midas Hygiene (supra), BK Engineering v. Ubhi,
(supra), TV Venugopal (supra) and Lakshmikant Patel (supra). Accordingly,
the Defendants have failed show a plausible reason as to how the Defendants
came up with the Impugned Marks, accordingly, prima facie the use of the
Impugned Marks is dishonest.
Laxmikant V.Patel vs Chetanbhat Shah & Anr on 4 December, 2001
In cases of infringement and passing off of Trade Marks an injunction
must follow and as held in Midas Hygiene (supra), BK Engineering v. Ubhi,
(supra), TV Venugopal (supra) and Lakshmikant Patel (supra). Accordingly,
the Defendants have failed show a plausible reason as to how the Defendants
came up with the Impugned Marks, accordingly, prima facie the use of the
Impugned Marks is dishonest.
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) ... on 9 July, 2020
The Plaintiffs have also deliberately
undervalued the suit, contrary to the requirements of Section 12
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, only to improperly invoke
the jurisdiction of this Court. The present proceedings are,
therefore, vexatious, amount to forum shopping, and constitute
an abuse of process, liable to be dismissed at the very threshold.
3.3. It is a settled principle that if, on a meaningful reading of the
plaint, it appears to be vexatious, meritless, or discloses no real
cause of action, the Court must reject it. The Supreme Court in
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, (2020) 7 SCC 366
has clarified that clever drafting cannot be permitted to create an
illusion of a cause of action.