Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.37 seconds)M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. ... vs Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. on 1 July, 2014
In M/s Bhatia Plastics v. M/s
Peacock Industries Ltd. (supra) the Court was dealing with marks
„Peacock‟ and „Mayur‟ which were held to be deceptively similar being the
CS(COMM) 819/2018 Page 4 of 8
translation of the name of bird and likely to create confusion. The aforesaid
judgments do not help the plaintiff in any manner. It is well settled that
judicial precedent cannot be followed as a statute and has to be applied with
reference to the facts of the case involved in it. The ratio of any decision has
to be understood in the background of the facts of that case. What is of the
essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor
what logically follows from the various observations made in it. It has to be
remembered that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides.
It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make
a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The ratio of one
case cannot be mechanically applied to another case without regard to the
factual situation and circumstances of the two cases.
The Navy Act, 1957
The Army Act, 1950
Section 2 in The Cantonments Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
The Air Force Act, 1950
The Copyright Act, 1957
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004
In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8
SCC 579, the Supreme Court held that a decision cannot be relied on
CS(COMM) 819/2018 Page 5 of 8
without considering the factual situation. The Supreme Court observed as
under:-
Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs Poineer Soap Factory on 26 May, 1983
In Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Pioneer Soap Factory (supra) the
Court was dealing with marks „Sun‟ and „Suraj‟ which were held to be
deceptively similar on the ground that that „Suraj‟ being the translation of
the word „Sun‟ and was likely to create confusion. The aforesaid judgments
do not help the plaintiff in any manner.
1