Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.47 seconds)
Godavari Match Industries, ... vs The Comorin Match Industries Pvt. Ltd., ... on 8 October, 1999
cites
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
Parle Products v. J.P. & Company Mysore,
"In order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. It is of no use to note on how many points there is similarity and in how many others there is absence of it."
F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969
In fact such an analysis is stated to be impermissible as found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in one of the Judgments referred to earlier namely, Roche & Company v. G. Manners & Company, . Except probably for the difference in the words found in the two labels as referred to above namely, "KISAN" (label of the plaintiff), "KRISE RACE" (label of the defendants) and the chariot (label of the defendants) all other overall features in the label of the defendants appear to be resembling so closely to the label of the plaintiff. Inasmuch as the plaintiff's trade mark is a registered trade mark, his statutory right under section 28 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act of 1958 should be protected. The label of the defendants is found to be so nearly resembling with the mark of the plaintiff and there is no doubt at all that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the mind of an unwary
purchaser.
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Thomas Bear And Sons (India) Limited vs Prayag Narain on 7 March, 1940
T.B. & Sons v. Prayag Narain, AIR 1940 PC 86:
Ciba Ltd. vs M. Ramalingam And S. Subramaniam ... on 12 March, 1957
"You must take the two words. You must judge of them, both by their look and by their sound. You must consider the goods to which they are to be applied. You must consider the nature and kind of customer who would be likely to buy those goods. In fact you must consider all the surrounding circumstances; and you must further consider what is. likely to happen if each of those trade mark is used in a normal way as a trade mark for the goods of the respective owners of the marks. If, considering all these circumstances, you come to the conclusion that there will be a confusion, that is to say, not necessarily that one man will be injured and the other will gain illicit benefit but that there will be a confusion in the mind of the public which will lead to confusion in the goods, then you may refuse the registration, or, rather, you must refuse the registration in that case."
Vishnudas Trading As Vishnudas vs The Vazir Sultan Tobaccoco. Ltd. ... on 9 July, 1996
134
(3) James C. & Brothers v. M.S.T. Company,
(4) Ciba Ltd. v. M. Ramalingam,
(5) Chinnakrishnan Chettiar v. Sri Arnbal & Company, 1964 (2) MLJ 206
(6) M/s. Hiralal Parphudas v. M/s. Ganesh Trading Company,
(7) Durga Dutt Sharma v. N.P. Laboratories,
(8) Ruston & Hornby Limited v. Z. Engineering Company,
(9) Roche & Company v. G. Manners & Company,
(10) Parle Products v. J.P. & Company Mysore,
(11) M/s. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai v. M/s. Aristo Pharmaceutical 8 Limited, Chennai, 1999 (2) MLJ 467
(12) National Chemicals & Colour Co. v. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd., Cases & Materials on Trade Marks 715
(13) Daimler Benz AktiegeeelIschatt v. Hybo Hindustan,
(14) Girnar Tea & Another v. Brooke Bond (India) Ltd., Cases & Material on Trade Marks 1125
(15) Kewal Krishan Kumar Trading as Kumar Dal Hills v Akash Spices & Food Industry, Cases & Material on Trade Marks 266
(16) Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishendas v. The Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Hyderabad & Another, Cases & Material on Trade Mark 888
(17) Madan Lal Arora v. Soni Udyog & another, Cases & Materials on Trade Marks 226
(18) Blue Star Ltd. v. Sidwal Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. & another, Cases & Material on Trade Marks 1066
(19) Karle on Trade Marks 12th Edition, Pages 439, 440, 447 & 448
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
In Durga Dutt Sharma v. N.P. Laboratories, it has been held as follows: