Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.51 seconds)
Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., Calcutta vs Surender Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries), ... on 21 November, 2000 cites

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964

Here the point is in relation to relative strength of the parties on the question of 'passing off. As discussed under Point 5 the proof of resemblance or similarity in cases of passing off and infringement are different. 'In a passing off action additions, get up or trade-dress might be relevant to enable the defendant to escape. In infringement cases, such facts do not assume relevance. (See Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd., ; Ruston and Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co., and Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Suppl. SCC 727.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 512 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

Here the point is in relation to relative strength of the parties on the question of 'passing off. As discussed under Point 5 the proof of resemblance or similarity in cases of passing off and infringement are different. 'In a passing off action additions, get up or trade-dress might be relevant to enable the defendant to escape. In infringement cases, such facts do not assume relevance. (See Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd., ; Ruston and Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co., and Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Suppl. SCC 727.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document

National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd vs James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.(J.& P. Coats ... on 7 May, 1953

27. Even though other decisions were cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, but they are not necessary to refer inasmuch as the Supreme Court has considered all the other decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the parties in S.M. Dyechem Ltd. case (supra). Therefore, it will be of no use by repeating the same. Hence, when once the infringement is alleged, it is not necessary that the mark should be deceptively similar and if the mark has the effect of creating confusion in the minds of the consumer, it constitutes sufficient violation of the trade mark or infringement of the registered trade mark.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 253 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next