Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
Express Bottlers Services Private Ltd. vs Pepsico Inc. And Ors. on 24 March, 1988
In Express Bottlers Services Pvt.
Ltd. v. Pepsi Inc. 3, it has been held as under:-
Dr. Reddy???S Laboratory Ltd. vs Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 13 September, 2013
In fact, in Dr. Reddy Laboratories v. Reddy
Paharmaceuticals 4, a Single Judge of this Court has held as
under:-
Chandrakant Sahu vs Coal India Limited 47 Wa/48/2018 Indra ... on 10 December, 2019
22. Where a prima facie case of infringement and passing off is
made out, the Supreme Court, in para 14 of Laxmikant V. Patel v.
Chetanbhai Shah5 and in para 5 of Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd.
v. Sudhir Bhatia 6, clearly holds that the Court has necessarily to
injunct further release, manufacture and sale of the infringing.
Shri Pankaj Goel vs M/S. Dabur India Ltd. on 4 July, 2008
19. Thirdly, a plea of the marks being common to the trade cannot
be taken in such a fashion. The standard at which such a plea has to be
raised stands thus encapsulated in the judgment of a Division Bench
of this Court in Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India 1:
Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs R A Perfumery Works Private Limited on 25 August, 2021
In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R.A. Perfumery Works Pvt Ltd 7,
exemption is granted from the requirement of pre-institution
mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
22. Where a prima facie case of infringement and passing off is
made out, the Supreme Court, in para 14 of Laxmikant V. Patel v.
Chetanbhai Shah5 and in para 5 of Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd.
v. Sudhir Bhatia 6, clearly holds that the Court has necessarily to
injunct further release, manufacture and sale of the infringing.
National Bell Co. & Anr vs Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr on 18 March, 1970
"21. As far as the Appellant's argument that the word MOLA is
common to the trade and that variants of MOLA are available in
the market, we find that the Appellant has not been able to prima
facie prove that the said 'infringers' had significant business
turnover or they posed a threat to Plaintiff's distinctiveness. In fact,
we are of the view that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not expected to
sue all small type infringers who may not be affecting
Respondent/Plaintiff business. The Supreme Court in National
Signature Not Verified
1
Digitally Signed (2008) 38 PTC 49 (DB)
By:KAMLA RAWAT CS(COMM) 277/2023 Page 8 of 13
Signing Date:08.05.2023
12:13:44
Bell v. Metal Goods 2, has held that a proprietor of a trademark
need not take action against infringement which do not cause
prejudice to its distinctiveness.
1