Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (2.56 seconds)THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dgawan & Anr. on 6 January, 1999
25. The defendants have neither challenged this registration in
any appropriate forum nor shown any pending rectification
proceedings, which weakens their assertion of the mark being
generic or non-distinctive. The argument that names in the
pharmaceutical industry are often derived from ingredients does
not automatically make every such name generic. As held by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K.
Dhawan & Anr. (Supra), even if part of a trademark is allegedly
descriptive or suggestive, the trademark must be considered as a
whole. In this case, the whole word 'HAEMOCAL' has acquired
a secondary meaning due to the plaintiffs' longstanding and
continuous use, and it identifies the source of the product as that
of the plaintiff.
Section 31 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Copyright Act, 1957
F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969
14. I could lay my hand on one judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in F. Hoffman-La Roche & Co. Ltd Vs. Geoffrey Manners
& Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1970 decide on 08.09.1969, wherein Hon'ble
Apex Court has considered the judgment of Parker-Knoll Ltd. Vs.
Knoll International Ltd. in which the test for a confusion of two
words marks were formulated: The relevant paragraph is
reproduced hereunder:
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
"Dealing with the question as to whether there was likelihood
of confusion between the two marks, which was the view
taken by Desai, J. of the Bombay High Court in that case
which was over-ruled by the Division Bench, this Court
observed at page 978 as follows: