Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.50 seconds)
Rb Health (Us) Llc & Anr. vs Dabur India Limited on 27 November, 2020 cites

Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. on 15 March, 2013

12.2. In other words, the prior publication [in this case of Unilever] would fulfil the indicia of being in 'tangible form' or use prior to the date of filing. In the instant case, as noticed above, the Unilever designs were published on 28.02.1989 and 31.01.1995. These designs give the same visual impression which one would obtain when applied to the concerned article i.e. a soap bar. [See: Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd. vs. Wyeth Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1096]
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 25 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Rich Products Corporation And Another vs Indo Nippon Food Limited on 19 February, 2010

18.4. In other words, the taglines and indications/signs can, over a period of time, acquire a secondary meaning and/or significance whereby goods and services offered by the plaintiff can be distinguished from those of its competitors. This aspect, however, is a matter which falls in the realm of evidence. The evidence placed before the Court should be such which I.A. Signature Not No. 6865/2020 Verified in CS (COMM) No. 319/2020 Page 21 of 25 Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:27.11.2020 21:27:39 demonstrates distinctiveness. [See: Rich Products Corporation & Anr. vs. Indo Nippon Food Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 734] 18.5. The use of such taglines and indications/signs is not enough to establish distinctiveness. Therefore, financial figures placed on record with regard to sales turnover and advertising spend may point in the direction of the use of taglines and indications/signs but that, by itself, may not be enough to establish distinctiveness.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 27 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Whirlpool Of India Ltd vs Videocon Industries Ltd on 27 May, 2014

[See: Whirlpool v. Videocon, 2014 (60) PTC 155 [Bom]; Videocon v. Whirlpool, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1171 (DB); and Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India &Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 613] ix. An interim injunction is not granted in a design infringement action if there is a credible challenge put forth with regard to its validity on the ground of lack of novelty. The subject design registration not being "substantially different" from earlier known designs, as is sought to be demonstrated by reference to other registered designs published both in India and abroad, the plaintiffs'prayer for interim injunction ought to be rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 27 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

M/S. Videocon Industries vs M/S. Whirlpool Of India Ltd. on 8 August, 2014

[See: Whirlpool v. Videocon, 2014 (60) PTC 155 [Bom]; Videocon v. Whirlpool, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1171 (DB); and Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India &Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 613] ix. An interim injunction is not granted in a design infringement action if there is a credible challenge put forth with regard to its validity on the ground of lack of novelty. The subject design registration not being "substantially different" from earlier known designs, as is sought to be demonstrated by reference to other registered designs published both in India and abroad, the plaintiffs'prayer for interim injunction ought to be rejected.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs Union Of India & Anr on 20 January, 2012

[See: Whirlpool v. Videocon, 2014 (60) PTC 155 [Bom]; Videocon v. Whirlpool, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1171 (DB); and Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India &Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 613] ix. An interim injunction is not granted in a design infringement action if there is a credible challenge put forth with regard to its validity on the ground of lack of novelty. The subject design registration not being "substantially different" from earlier known designs, as is sought to be demonstrated by reference to other registered designs published both in India and abroad, the plaintiffs'prayer for interim injunction ought to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 350 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Marico Limited vs Agro Tech Foods Limited on 1 November, 2010

9.2. Marks which are descriptive cannot be monopolised and, therefore, no passing off action will lie against its use. [Marico Ltd. vs. Agro Tech, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3806] 9.3. Since the taglines or descriptive marks are not registered, therefore, no case of infringement can be made out by the plaintiffs. The mere fact that the label is registered does not give rights in the descriptive marks. In this behalf, reference was made to Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [in short "Trade Marks Act"].
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 60 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next