Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
A fine distinction has been drawn between what are the
salient distinguishing features of an action for passing off visàvis an
action for infringement in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v.
Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 SUPREME
COURT 980 as held under:
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
In Ruston and Hornby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co.
AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 1649 it has been held
"In an action for infringement where the defendant's trade
mark is identical with the plaintiff's mark, the Court will
not enquire whether the infringement is such as is likely to
deceive or cause confusion. But where the alleged
infringement consists of using not the exact mark on the
Register, but something similar to it, the test of
infringement is the same as in an action for passing off. In
other words, the test as to likelihood of confusion or
M/s Bikanervala vs. M/s Bikaner & Ors. TM. No. 107/2011 Page 33/39
34
deception arising from similarity of marks is the same
both in infringement and passingoff actions."
R. M. Malkani vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 September, 1972
24. PW1 stated in his cross examination that the representative of
the plaintiff firm had collected the poly bags Ex. PW 1/16 to Ex. PW
1/18 from the shops of the defendants, however he stated that he can
not tell as to how the said bags were obtained as to whether by
purchasing some articles or on some pretext. In my view, how the
M/s Bikanervala vs. M/s Bikaner & Ors. TM. No. 107/2011 Page 25/39
26
evidence has been obtained is immaterial. It is the settled law that
evidence does not become tainted even when obtained by tainted or
illegal means. The sanctity of evidence in both the cases remains0 the
same albeit for the illegal acts some other legal consequences may be
present, as provided by the law. The law on this aspect has been
enunciated in the judgments of R. M. Malkani vs. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 157 and Court on its Own Motion vs.
State & Ors. 151(2008) DLT 695 (DB) and a catena of case law.
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J. P. and Co., Mysore AIR 1972
SUPREME COURT 1359 it has been held:
Court On Its Own Motion vs State And Others on 21 August, 2008
24. PW1 stated in his cross examination that the representative of
the plaintiff firm had collected the poly bags Ex. PW 1/16 to Ex. PW
1/18 from the shops of the defendants, however he stated that he can
not tell as to how the said bags were obtained as to whether by
purchasing some articles or on some pretext. In my view, how the
M/s Bikanervala vs. M/s Bikaner & Ors. TM. No. 107/2011 Page 25/39
26
evidence has been obtained is immaterial. It is the settled law that
evidence does not become tainted even when obtained by tainted or
illegal means. The sanctity of evidence in both the cases remains0 the
same albeit for the illegal acts some other legal consequences may be
present, as provided by the law. The law on this aspect has been
enunciated in the judgments of R. M. Malkani vs. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 157 and Court on its Own Motion vs.
State & Ors. 151(2008) DLT 695 (DB) and a catena of case law.
1