Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.92 seconds)Gold (Control) Act, 1968
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Section 17 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959
The Corn Products v. Shangrila has been cited by the plaintiff to contend that products which do not have an established presence in the market cannot be considered in order to reject/grant a registration.
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
47. There were several other judgments cited by both counsel on the issue of passing off but in my view since the Hon'ble Supreme court has settled the law in Cadila Health Care's case (supra) and I have also extracted the position of law laid by this Court on almost identical facts in VICCO Laboratories case and Colgate Palmolive's case, it is not necessary to Page 1671 consider any other judgments for disposal of the present interim relief application. A perusal of two competing products as per the plaintiff's contention reveals as follows:
Vicco Laboratories, Bombay vs Hindustan Rimmer, Delhi on 31 January, 1979
47. There were several other judgments cited by both counsel on the issue of passing off but in my view since the Hon'ble Supreme court has settled the law in Cadila Health Care's case (supra) and I have also extracted the position of law laid by this Court on almost identical facts in VICCO Laboratories case and Colgate Palmolive's case, it is not necessary to Page 1671 consider any other judgments for disposal of the present interim relief application. A perusal of two competing products as per the plaintiff's contention reveals as follows:
Colgate Palmolive Company And Anr. vs Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. on 29 October, 2003
47. There were several other judgments cited by both counsel on the issue of passing off but in my view since the Hon'ble Supreme court has settled the law in Cadila Health Care's case (supra) and I have also extracted the position of law laid by this Court on almost identical facts in VICCO Laboratories case and Colgate Palmolive's case, it is not necessary to Page 1671 consider any other judgments for disposal of the present interim relief application. A perusal of two competing products as per the plaintiff's contention reveals as follows: