Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.44 seconds)F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969
In F. Hoffimann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffirey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd., , it was held that marks must be compared as a whole, the true test being whether the totality of the proposed trade mark is such that it is likely to cause deception or confusion or mistake in the minds of persons accustomed to the existing trade mark Microscopic examinations not called for. Both visual and phoetic tests must be applied.
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
In Parle Prodjucts v. J. P. & Co., , it was held that what must be considered are the broad and essential features of the two
marks which should not be placed side by side in order to find out the differences in design. It is enough if the impugned mark bears an overan similarity to the regfistered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him.
Section 6 in The Oaths Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
Mahomed Oomer Mahomed Noorulla Sahib vs S.M. Nooruddin on 20 April, 1955
21. It was urged by Mr. Kale that the respondnents were entitled to the benefit of Section 12(3) of the Act on the ground of honest concurrent user. This plea is certainly not been open to the respondents. Ths entire modus operandi of the respondents has been far from honest . It is also not without its own siginificance that no explanation has ... adopted their mark. Beyond Mr. Klae dixit thrown across the Bar, there is nothing on record that the get-up of thelabels isd usual and commonly used the by bidi manufacturers. It is manifest that the entire exercise has been engineered by the respondents aginast a vasty suceessful competitor, namely, the appellants. Where a case is not founded on truth such as the present, to such a person the benefit of Section 12(3) IS NOT AVAILABLE. (Mahomed Oomer v. S.M. Nooruddin, Furthehrmore this is nsot a lis between the two parties.
1