Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.28 seconds)
H&M; Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr vs Hm Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 31 May, 2018 cites

B.K. Engineering Co. vs Ubhi Enterprises (Registered) And Anr. on 12 November, 1984

vii) that on account of extensive use and promotion, a secondary meaning stands attached in respect of the mark / name / artwork H&M/ / and the same is exclusively associated by members of the trade and public with plaintiffs and plaintiffs products; reliance is placed on B.K. Engineering Company Vs. Ubhi Enterprises 1986 (6) PTC 291 (Del), Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Lachmi Narain Traders (2008) 149 DLT 46 (DB) and Laxmikant V. Patel Vs. Chetanbhai Shah (2002) 3 SCC 65.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (L&T;) vs Lachmi Narain Trades And Ors on 31 August, 2015

vii) that on account of extensive use and promotion, a secondary meaning stands attached in respect of the mark / name / artwork H&M/ / and the same is exclusively associated by members of the trade and public with plaintiffs and plaintiffs products; reliance is placed on B.K. Engineering Company Vs. Ubhi Enterprises 1986 (6) PTC 291 (Del), Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Lachmi Narain Traders (2008) 149 DLT 46 (DB) and Laxmikant V. Patel Vs. Chetanbhai Shah (2002) 3 SCC 65.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 13 - M Singh - Full Document

Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dhawan And Anr. on 17 October, 1994

viii) that the defendants having applied for registration of the marks and , cannot contend the marks H&M/ / to be non-distinctive; Megabrands is descriptive of the service of the defendants and in effect the mark of which registration is applied is „HM‟; the defendants having tried to claim exclusivity over the letters „H‟ and „M‟ cannot contend the same to be non-distinctive; reliance is placed on Automatic Electric Ltd. Vs. P.K. Dhawan (1999) 77 DLT IA No.7259/2016 in CS(COMM) No.707/2016 Page 13 of 36 292 and Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. Vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 211 DLT 466 (DB).
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Procter & Gamble Manufacturing ... vs Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. on 30 May, 2014

viii) that the defendants having applied for registration of the marks and , cannot contend the marks H&M/ / to be non-distinctive; Megabrands is descriptive of the service of the defendants and in effect the mark of which registration is applied is „HM‟; the defendants having tried to claim exclusivity over the letters „H‟ and „M‟ cannot contend the same to be non-distinctive; reliance is placed on Automatic Electric Ltd. Vs. P.K. Dhawan (1999) 77 DLT IA No.7259/2016 in CS(COMM) No.707/2016 Page 13 of 36 292 and Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. Vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 211 DLT 466 (DB).
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 12 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Prakash Roadline Ltd. vs Prakash Parcel Service (P) Ltd. on 1 March, 1992

14. Qua question (VI) above, this Court in Express Bottlers Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pepsico Inc. 1989 (9) PTC 14 and Century Traders Vs. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co. AIR 1978 Delhi 250 (DB), besides in Prakash Roadline Ltd. and Pankaj Goel supra cited by the plaintiffs, held that mere presence of mark in register (or of a name on the records of Registrar of Companies) does not prove use and a proprietor of a trade mark is not expected to pursue each and every insignificant infringer. It thus follows that use, even if any by others of the alphabets „HM‟ or „H&M‟ as part of their trade mark/ trade name, cannot deprive the plaintiffs, if otherwise found entitled to interim injunction against the defendants of such injunction.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 35 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next