Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 21 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
In the above case the Court further pointed out
"In an action for infringement, the plaintiff
must, no doubt, make out that the use of the
defendant's mark is likely to deceive, but
where the similarity between the plaintiff's
and the defendant's mark is so close either
visually, phonetically or otherwise and the
court reaches the conclusion that there is an
imitation, no further evidence is required to
establish that the plaintiff's rights are
violated. Expressed in another way, if the
essential features of the trade mark of the
plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant,
the fact that the get-up, packing and other
writing or marks on the goods or on the
packets hi which he offers his goods for sale
show marked differences, or indicate clearly a
trade or' in different from that of the regis-
tered proprietor of the mark would be
material; whereas in the case of passing off,
the defendant may escape liability if he can
show that the added matter is sufficient to
distinguish his goods from those of the
plaintiff."
Section 4 in The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 136 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
1