Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.29 seconds)
M/S Parle Products Pvt Ltd & Anr vs M/S B&B Bake Pvt Ltd on 20 November, 2019 cites

Century Traders vs Roshan Lal Duggar Co. on 27 April, 1977

13. He further submits that under the settled principles of law, it is the priority in adoption and use which entitles the earlier adopter to claim exclusive rights in a trade mark and not the extent of usage of the mark between two parties as on the date of filing of suit. In any case, as the appellants are admittedly the subsequent adopter and user of the mark, no amount of sale or publicity would entitle the appellants to claim proprietary rights in the impugned mark or would allow the Appellants to usurp the existing mark of the pliantiff. Reliance is placed on Centuiy Traders vs Roshan Lai Duggar (DB) AIR 1978 Delhi 250, Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs MSS Food Industries AIR 2005 SC 1999, Bhatia Plastics Vs Peacock Industries AIR 1995 Delhi 144 and Laxmikant V. Patel vs Chetanbhat Shah AIR 2002 SC 275.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 239 - Full Document

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

This is evident from the decisions of this Court in the cases of National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. case [AIR 1953 SC 357] , Corn Products Refining Co. case [AIR 1960 SC 142 : (1960) 1 SCR 968] , Amritdhara Pharmacy case [Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449] , Durga Dutt Sharma case [Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980] , and Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. case [Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manner & Co. (P) Ltd., (1969) 2 SCC 716] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 512 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

In the case of Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] a Bench of three learned Judges considered the question of grant of interlocutory injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a case under Section 29(2) of the Act and Section 55 of the FAO-221/2016 Page 31 of 41 Copyright Act, 1957 and held as follows: (SCC pp. 731-32 & 733, paras 9 & 14) "9. Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well-settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated „... is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the "balance of convenience" lies‟.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document

Industria De Diseno Textile Sa vs Oriental Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 19 May, 2015

16. The plaintiff‟s also reluy upon the following judgments: Harish Motichand Sariya v. Ajanta India Limited, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 37; T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 85; Industria De Diseno Textil SA v. Oriental Cuisines (P) Ltd., (2014) 8 HCC (Del) 428 and Dharam Pal Satya Pal v. Janta Sales Corporation, 1990 SCC OnLine Del 104.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Hearst Communications, Inc. vs Dinesh Varyani & Another on 27 April, 2009

19. The plaintiff applied for registration of trade marks LA AMERICANA BURGER and AMERICANA BURGER claiming user since 16.07.2014. On the other hand, the appellant applied for registration of the Trade Mark AMERICANA in October, 2015 and launched a new variety of biscuits in the name AMERICANA in January, 2016. It has been submitted by the appellants that within 3 months of its launch of the new variety of biscuits, the sale of the same crossed Rs. 8.5 crores. The plaintiff has to establish all the ingredients of passing off to succeed for injunction. The plaintiff has failed to show any exact advertisement figures or show that it has been a long user of the impugned mark to establish goodwill. The word FAO-221/2016 Page 15 of 41 AMERICANA is a dictionary word which is used by several parties for the purposes of trading and is not being used exclusively by the respondent. It is also important to note that the appellant always used its famous mark on the packaging of the butter cookies. The appellant relies upon Hearst Communications, Inc. v. Dinesh Varyani, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1138, which held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - S Khanna - Full Document

Khoday Distilleries Limited (Now Known ... vs The Scotch Whisky Association And ... on 27 May, 2008

In Khodav Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association reported in, (2008) 10 SCC 723, the Supreme Court observed that while deciding the question of deceptive similarity, one of the factors to be taken into consideration is a class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the two marks, their education, intelligence and degree of care that is likely to be exercised in purchasing or using the goods. Where the class of purchasers is illiterate and poor, the test applied is different FAO-221/2016 Page 17 of 41 in comparison to cases when the product is consumed by educated and rich. Court in the said case observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 83 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next