Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.80 seconds)
Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries ... vs Champion Ceramic on 18 January, 2011 cites

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969

Taking an overall view of the marks, we feel that a person of average FAO No.95/2005 Page 8 of 10 intelligence and imperfect recollection would not be deceived by the mark 'SKINCLINIQ' into believing that it is, in fact, the mark 'CLINIQUE'. We feel that the learned single judge fell into error in splitting the appellants' mark "SKINCLINIQ" into 'SKIN' and 'CLINIQ' and in then comparing the latter component (CLINIQ) with the respondents' mark 'CLINIQUE'. Had the appellants' mark been only 'CLINIQ' then, perhaps, it could be said that it is deceptively similar to the respondents' mark 'CLINIQUE'. However, the appellants' mark is not just 'CLINIQ' but 'SKINCLINIQ', which is one word and not two separate words as in Rustam's case and Cleanzo's case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 289 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001

9. It has also been submitted that the learned Additional District Judge did a grave error in not appreciating that the trade mark has to be taken in its entirety and as a whole and has failed to appreciate the various decisions of the Apex Court including those reported in M/s Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs. Satyadeo Gupta, 1963 (2) SCR 484; M/s Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. & Company, Mysore, AIR 1972 SCC 1359; M/s Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 1952; and, M/s Hitachi Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kr.Agarwal & Ors., 1996 PTC (16) (DB).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

Hitachi Ltd. vs Ajay Kr. Agarwal And Ors. on 31 March, 1995

9. It has also been submitted that the learned Additional District Judge did a grave error in not appreciating that the trade mark has to be taken in its entirety and as a whole and has failed to appreciate the various decisions of the Apex Court including those reported in M/s Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs. Satyadeo Gupta, 1963 (2) SCR 484; M/s Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. & Company, Mysore, AIR 1972 SCC 1359; M/s Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 1952; and, M/s Hitachi Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kr.Agarwal & Ors., 1996 PTC (16) (DB).
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - M J Rao - Full Document

S.B.L. Ltd. vs Himalaya Drug Co. on 15 July, 1997

13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the judgment delivered by the Additional District FAO No.95/2005 Page 6 of 10 Judge has been pleased to observe that if one goes by Section 17 of the Trade Mark Act and read the said provisions along with Section 29 of the Act, it becomes apparently clear that the contentions of the appellant are not sustainable in law because as per Section 17, for the purpose of infringement, the entire trade mark of the appellant in toto has to be considered for the purpose of considering if there is a violation thereof or not. It is further submitted that the trademark of the appellant if read in whole, makes it clear that the user of the trade mark "HIMWARE" by the respondents in no way infringes the trade mark of the appellant and, therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the Additional District Judge is perfectly legal and valid. The respondents have also relied upon various judgments to support their contention. Reference has been made to Kewal Krishan Kumar Vs. Rudi Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr., 2003 (26) PTC 175 (Delhi); S.B.L.Limited Vs. Himalaya Drug Co., AIR 1998 Delhi 126; and Amar Singh Chawalwala Vs. Shree Warddhman Rice & General Mills,1996(36) DRJ 11. Insofar as the last judgment is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that the said judgment stand negatives by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.09.2007 passed in OCJA No. 1/2003
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 48 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Amar Singh Chawalwala vs Shree Wardhman Rice & General Mills on 1 March, 1996

13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the judgment delivered by the Additional District FAO No.95/2005 Page 6 of 10 Judge has been pleased to observe that if one goes by Section 17 of the Trade Mark Act and read the said provisions along with Section 29 of the Act, it becomes apparently clear that the contentions of the appellant are not sustainable in law because as per Section 17, for the purpose of infringement, the entire trade mark of the appellant in toto has to be considered for the purpose of considering if there is a violation thereof or not. It is further submitted that the trademark of the appellant if read in whole, makes it clear that the user of the trade mark "HIMWARE" by the respondents in no way infringes the trade mark of the appellant and, therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the Additional District Judge is perfectly legal and valid. The respondents have also relied upon various judgments to support their contention. Reference has been made to Kewal Krishan Kumar Vs. Rudi Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr., 2003 (26) PTC 175 (Delhi); S.B.L.Limited Vs. Himalaya Drug Co., AIR 1998 Delhi 126; and Amar Singh Chawalwala Vs. Shree Warddhman Rice & General Mills,1996(36) DRJ 11. Insofar as the last judgment is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that the said judgment stand negatives by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.09.2007 passed in OCJA No. 1/2003
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

M/S Gufic Ltd. & Another vs Clinique Laboratories, Llc & Anr on 9 July, 2010

14. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the case as well as gone through the judgments cited at bar. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the parties. All the judgments cited by the appellant as well as by the respondent have been referred to in a recent judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gufic Ltd. and Anr Vs Clinique Laboratories, LLC and Anr, MIPR 2010 (2) 411, wherein this court after referring the couple of above mentioned judgments had culled out the following principles:-
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 18 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1   2 Next