Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.79 seconds)

Hindustan Pencils Limited vs J.N. Ghosh And Bros. Pvt. Ltd. on 30 October, 2006

"14 In the present case also, one of the points which arises for determination is the controversy pertaining to common field by activity. It is the case of the defendants herein that they are in the Tea Export Business whereas the Group of Companies of the Plaintiffs whereas the Group of Companies of the Plaintiffs are not in Tea Export Business. It is also contended that even one of the companies which in in the Tea Export Business does not bear the name "ESSEL" and in the circumstances, the plaintiffs are not entitled to an interim injunction in passing off action. This argument was also advanced in the case of Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it was rejected by Jhunjhunwala, J. by observing that the expression common field of activity is not conclusive for deciding whether there can be a passing off action although at one point of time the said test was treated as conclusive. With the passage of time the law on requirement of common field of activity in a passing off action has radically undergone a change and, according to the learned single Judge, there is no Contd......
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959

Refining Co. Vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. (para 20) "......... there is no reason why the test of trade connection between different goods should not apply where the competing marks closely resemble each other just as much as it applies, as held in the black magic and panda cases, where the competing marks were identical. Whether by applying these tests in the particular case the conclusion that there is likelihood of deception or confusion would be arrived at would depend on all the facts of the case ......"
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 398 - Full Document

Bajaj Electricals Limited vs Metals & Allied Products And Anr. on 4 August, 1987

15 In the case of Bajaj Electricals Ltd. vs. Metals and Allied Projects, reported in AIR 1988 Bom 157 : 1988 PTC 133, the Division Bench of this court while granting injunction has observed that it is always in the interest of fair trading and in the interests of all who may wish to buy or to sell goods, the law recognises that certain limitations upon freedom of action are necessary and desirable. In some situations the law had to resolve what might at first appear to be conflicts between competing right. In solving the problems which have arisen there has been no need to resort to any abstract principles but rather, to the straight-forward principle that trading must not only be honest but must not even unintentionally be unfair."
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 56 - Full Document
1   2 Next