Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (1.24 seconds)
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd vs Lupin Ltd & Anr on 19 February, 2018 cites

M/S.Siyaram Silk Mills Limited vs M/S.Shree Siyaram Fab Private Limited on 13 January, 2012

2009(41) PTC 41(Del), Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd. v. Shree Siyaram Fab Pvt. Ltd. : (2012) 2 Mah LJ 49, The Singer Company Limited & Anr. Versus Ms. Chetan Machine Tools & Ors : ILR (2009) 3 Del 802: (2009) 159 DLT 135, CS(COMM) 918/2016 Page 19 of 22 Chorion Rights Limited Versus Ishan Apparel, : ILR (2010) 5 Del 481 xv. While staying the further proceedings pending decision of the registrar on rectification, an interim order including of injunction restraining the use of the registered trademark by the Defendant can be made by the court. Rajnish Aggarwal Versus Anantam : 2010(43) PTC 442 (Del) xvi. A trademark shall not be registered if it is identical or similar to an earlier trademark in respect of goods or services covered by the trademark and is likely to cause confusion amongst the public. Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 xvii. Registration of an identical or a similar trademark shall also be refused for goods and services not covered by the earlier trademark if it is shown that the earlier trademark is a well known trademark. Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 xviii.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document

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

30. The other plea of defendants is that it is a prior user of the mark VOBIT since 2008 and merely a prefix TRI has been added to the same and hence, a case of passing off cannot be made out. It is settled legal position that while comparing the trademarks, the trademarks have to be taken as a whole. The CS(COMM) 918/2016 Page 20 of 22 above proposition was noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) while relying upon the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Corn Products Refining Co. V. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 545 - Full Document

Amritdhara Pharmacy vs Satyadeo Gupta on 27 April, 1962

AIR 1963 SC 449 ix. Where the similarity between the Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs rights are violated. Kehsav Kumar Aggarwal Versus M/s. NUT Ltd. 2013 (199) DLT 242 x. Competing marks have to be compared keeping in mind an unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Amritdhara Pharmacy versus Satyadeo Gupta : AIR 1963 SC 449 xi. Broad and essential features of the two are to be considered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 70 - S K Das - Full Document
1   2 3 Next