Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.30 seconds)
Allied Blenders @ Distillers Private ... vs Hermes Distillery Private Limited on 15 January, 2024 cites

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

The Supreme Court in S.M. Dyechem (supra) and Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals [2001 (5) SCC 73] emphasized that the test is of overall similarity. Further, the comparison is not to be done side-by-side, but the test is of imperfect recollection. It is to be kept in mind that consumers have hazy memories and most often the intricate differences are not usually discernible. This is also clear from the extracts from Kerly's Law of Trademarks' and the Law of Passing Off by Christopher Wadlow, which have been cited on behalf of the Defendant themselves. Thus, the merely display of brand names would not obviate the confusion as to connection, business affiliation, etc. and due to overall similarity in the labels, confusion could be caused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. ... vs Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. on 1 July, 2014

48. The Plaintiff places reliance upon Allied Blenders II (supra) and Allied Blenders IV (supra), in which the Court recognized the unique features of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 274/2021 Page 34 of 43 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:16.01.2024 14:21:00 Plaintiff's alcoholic products, particularly at the point of sale within a specific consumer segment. Regarding the Defendant's argument emphasizing the dissimilarities between rival marks ought not to be ignored, the law is well settled.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 9 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Burger King Corporation vs Techchand Shewakramani & Ors on 27 August, 2018

57. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has also raised issues of jurisdiction. It is not disputed on behalf of the Defendant, that the trade mark application of the Defendant has been filed by one of its directors, a resident of Delhi. Additionally, the Defendant is also carrying on business in Delhi and has a godown in Delhi. Thus, considering the judgments in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. (supra), Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. (supra) and Burger King Corporation (supra) at this stage, the Court is not inclined to uphold the objection of territorial jurisdiction. If required, an issue on jurisdiction can be framed at a later stage.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 20 - P M Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next