Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.39 seconds)G.T.C. Industries Ltd., Bombay vs I.T.C. Limited, Madras on 5 February, 1991
57. This Court, in G.T.C. Industries Limited, Bombay v. I.T.C. Limited, Madras , referring to a decision in National Garments v. National Apparels , held thus:
Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 19 June, 1998
49. The learned senior counsel Mr. P. Chidambaram, inviting our attention to a judgment of this Court in Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Mumbai v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Limited, Madras 1998 M.L.J. 214 contended that the scope of the appellate court is limited to interfere with discretionary orders of interlocutory nature, that too, when the suit is pending. Even if two views are possible on the material placed before the trial court, the different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion, just because another view is reasonably possible on such material. It is settled in law that in a catena of decisions demarcating the exercise of appellate powers, on discretionary interlocutory orders a note of caution always suggests when and how interference could be caused with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitutes its own discretion. That could be done if the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. Of course, the appellate court to some degree has to re-assess the material if the assessment is capricious. It has to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the conclusion is reasonably, prudently not possible on material. But, if the view expressed by the trial court is reasonably probable in the normal circumstances, in such a situation, the appellate court should be very slow to dislodge the view of the trial court to reach a contrary conclusion.
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969
In Roche & Co v. G. Manners & Co. , the Apex Court held that letters 'D' and 'P' in "DROPOVIT" and the corresponding letters 'P' and 'T' in "PROTOVIT" cannot possibly be slurred over in pronounciation and the words are so dissimilar that there is no reasonable probability of confusion between the words either from the visual or phonetic point of view.
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
45. On this aspect, the learned senior counsel relied on a judgment in Durga Dutt Sharma v. N.P. Laboratories , wherein it was held that when the two 'marks are not identical, the identification of the essential features of the mark is in essence a question of fact and depends on the judgment of the court led before it as regards the usage of trade. Kerly on Trade Marks 8th Edn. 407 reads: "Where common marks are included in the trade marks to be compared or in one of them, the proper course is to look at the marks as whole and not to disregard the parts which are common'. The fact that the get-up, packing and other writing or marks on the goods or on the packets in which he offers his good for sale show marked differences, or indicate clearly a trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor of the mark would be immaterial, because the purpose of comparison is for determining whether the essential features of the plaintiff's trade mark are to be found in that used by the defendant. In the ultimate analysis, whether the mark used by the respondent as a whole is deceptively similar to that of the registered mark is the question, not the product. Therefore, the reasoning is erroneous.
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
I may at once point out that this kind of comparison is what is precisely prohibited in Park Products (P) Limited v. J.P. and Co. (1973)2 S.C.J. 17, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed: "It is therefore clear that 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 a 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.
Section 29 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
In Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Z. Engineering Co. , the Apex Court held that infringement takes place not merely by exact imitation but by the use of a mark so nearly resembling the registered mark as to be likely to deceive.