Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories , the Apex Court has set out the distinction between action for passing off and action for infringement of a trade mark. The Supreme Court has then stated the law for the courts faced with an action for infringement of a trade mark and laid down the following principles;
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
22. The above principles are deducible from Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. .
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. , the Apex Court laid emphasis on the test of overall similarity.
K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969
In K. Krishna Chettiar v. Ambal & Co. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 147, it is held that that there is a striking similarity and affinity of sound between the words 'Andal' and 'Ambal'. There is a real danger of confusion between the two marks.
K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty Trading As ... vs K. Venkatesa Mudaliar And K. ... on 6 October, 1972
In K.R.C. Chetty v. K.V. Mudaliar , the appellant's application for registration of their snuff "Radha's Sri Andal" was opposed by the respondent. The Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
Aravind Laboratories vs V.A. Samy Chemical Works on 8 July, 1986
Aravind Laboratories vs V. Annamalai Chettiar on 9 April, 1980
Amrutanjan Limited vs Amarchand Sobachand on 18 September, 1979
(3) Amrutanjan Ltd. v. Amarchand Sobachand, C.S.No. 108 of 1977, dated 18.9.1979.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969
45. The leading case is Roche & Co., v. G. Manners & Co. . The question was whether 'DROPOVIT' and 'PROTOVIT' are deceptively similar. The Apex Court found that the last three letters were common, and in the uncommon part, the first two are consonants, the next is the same vowel 'o' the next is a consonant and the fifth is again a common vowel 'o'. The combined effect was to produce alliteration. 'VIT' is a well known abbreviation used in pharmaceutical trade to denote vitamin preparation. Thus the terminal styllable 'VIT' in the two marks was both descriptive and common to the trade. The Apex Court observed as follows: