Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.53 seconds)
Aravind Laboratories vs V. Annamalai Chettiar on 9 April, 1980 cites

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

The decision in Ruston and Hornby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. is referred to by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs appellants herein to show that in the said decision, the appellant therein was also granted a decree for nominal damages to the extent of Rs. 100. in the said case, the appellant was granted a decree restraining the respondent therein by a permanent injunction from infringing the plaintiffs' trade mark "Rustom" and from using it in connection with the engines, machinery and accessories manufactured and sold by it under the trade mark of "Rustom" or "Rustom India". In the said decision the Supreme Court also observed that the appellant was also entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent and its agents from selling or advertising for sale of engines, machinery or accessories under the names of "Rustom" or "Rustom India". The appellant was further held to be entitled co an order calling upon the respondent to deliver to the appellant price-lists, bills, invoices and other advertising material bearing the mark "Rustom" of "Rustom India".
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 289 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

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

Let us apply these tests to the facts of the case under our consideration. It is not disputed before us that the two names 'Amirtdhara' and 'Lakshmandhara' are in use in respect of same description of good's, namely, a medical preparation for the alleviation of various ailments. Such medicinal preparation will be purchased mostly by people who, instead of going to a doctor wish to purchase a medicine for the quick alleviation of their suffering, both villagers and towns-folk; literate as well as illiterate. As was said in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd the question has to be approached from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. To such a man the overall structural and phonetic similarity of the two names 'Amritdhara' and 'Lakshmandhara' is, in our opinion, likely to deceive or cause confusion. We must consider the overall similarity of the two composite words 'Amritdhara' and 'Lakshmandhara'. We do not think that the learned Judges of the High Court were right in saying that no Indian would mistake one for the other An unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would not, as the High Court supposed, split the name into its component parts and consider the meaning of the composite words as 'current of nectar' or current of Lakshman. He would go more by the overall structural and phonetic similarity and the nature of the medicine he has previously purchased, of has been told about, or about which he has otherwise learnt and which he wants to purchase. Where the trade relates to goods largely sold to illiterate or badly educated persons, it is no answer to say that a person educated in the Hindi language would go by the etymological or ideological meaning and see the difference between 'current of nectar' and 'current of Laksman' 'Current of Lakshman' in a literal sense has no meaning. To give it meaning one must further make the inference that the current or stream is as pure and strong as Lakshman of the Ramayana. An ordinary Indian villager or townsman will perhaps know Lakshman; the story of the Ramayana being familiar to him, but we doubt if he would etymologies to the extent of seeing the so-called ideological difference between 'Amritdhara' and 'Lakshmandhara'. He would go more by the similarity of the two names in the context of the widely known medicinal preparation which he wants for his ailments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 398 - Full Document

Juggi Lal-Kamalapat vs The Swadeshi Mills Company, Limited on 2 November, 1928

18. On the question of damages for infringement, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs refers to the decision in Juggi Lal v. Swadeshi Mills Co. 29 L.W. 243 : 56 M.L.J. 232: 56 I.A. 1 : A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 11 for the proposition that there is no cut and dry rule which can be laid down by a Court of law for the estimation of damages in a case of infringement of trade-mark. But instead of making a speculative assumption of sales by defendant by trusting to their own goods without the misleading trade-mark the safer basis would be to calculate on the falling-off in plaintiff's trade which came in after the pirated mark was introduced on the market.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty Trading As ... vs K. Venkatesa Mudaliar And K. ... on 6 October, 1972

Though at one stage we considered that the addition of the word 'Radha' to the legend 'Sri Andal' makes all the difference, after our attention was drawn to the three cases referred to above, viz, (1) relating to the Vick Vaporub, where the objection to the registration of the respondents Vaporub which infringed the appellant's registered mark was sought to be got over by adding a word 'Karosote to the respondents' legend, and; (2) where the objection to the registration of the respondent's trade mark 'Rustom' was sought to be met by the addition of the word 'India' to the objected legend and (3) where the word "Balova" was sought to be added to the legend "Accutron" which legend was held to infringe the respondents' trade mark "Accurist" we are persuaded to come to the opposite conclusion that the addition of the word 'Radha' to the legend 'Sri Aadal' will not make the slightest difference and that the view of the learned Judge is correct. The appellant's snuff sold under the trade name "Sri Aadal" the registration of which was objected to by the respondents, has been in the market for some years and the objection to its registration has now been finally upheld. The question for consideration now will be whether the addition of the word 'Radha' to the objected legend makes a vital difference - when the two marks are compared side by side the question will be whether the addition of the word will make any vital difference. As observed by Stamp, J., in 1969 R.P.C. No. 102 at p. 109. where imperfect recollection is relevant what has to be considered is how far the additional word is significant to prevent imperfect recollection and the resultant confusion. We are of the opinion that the combination of the two words 'Radha's Sri Andal' is likely to be taken by snuff-users as the snuff manufactured and marketed by the appellant originally as 'Sri Andal. The appellant's learned Counsel sought to distinguish the above three cases on the ground that in the aforesaid decisions the new word sought to be added was only the name of the country of manufacture while in the present case, the addition of the word 'Radha' to the legend 'Sri Andal' is a combination which has nothing in common with the respondent's legend "Sri Ambal." We are unable to accept the ground of distinction made by the learned counsel. We are of opinion that there is a tangible danger that a substantial number of persons will contuse the appellants 'Radha's Sri Andal, mark applies for with the respondents legend 'Sri Ambal snuff'.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Ortha Pharmaceuticals Corporation on 21 March, 1974

23. The learned Counsel for the defendant refers to the decision in Mount Mettur Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals Corporation (1975) 1 M.L.J. 103 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 74 in which it was held that "Utogynal" in relation to medicinal preparation is not likely to cause confusion with "Ortho-Gynol" (registered as trade mark). It was also held in the said decision that comparison of the two words not only syllable for syllable but as a whole shows that the total sound effect of the words lacks any similarity. So also when the words are written down and compared, they do not have any similarity which can deceive the eye of the layman.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. vs A. Wander on 21 July, 1976

24. The decision in Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. v. Dr. A. Wander is relied upon by the learned Counsel for the defendant for the proposition that the primary tests are that the words should be judged by their look and by their sound. In this case it is held that there is no similarity in the goods by their look and that "Asthmix" and ''Asmac" are not similar in sound and are not likely to confuse any person.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - P S Kailasam - Full Document
1   2 Next