Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (1.02 seconds)The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha vs M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited on 14 December, 2017
"37. Whether the second principle evolved under the trinity
test, i.e., triple identity test laid down in Reckitt and Colman Ltd.
(supra) would stand established on the test of likelihood of
confusion or real/actual confusion is another question that
seems to have arisen in the present case as the Division Bench
of the High Court has taken the view that the first test, i.e.,
likelihood of confusion is required to be satisfied only in quia
timet actions and actual confusion will have to be proved when
the suit or claim is being adjudicated finally as by then a
considerable period of time following the initiation of the action
of passing off might have elapsed.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Dr. Reddy???S Laboratory Ltd. vs Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 13 September, 2013
(a) DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD. V. REDDY
PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED [2004(29) PTC 435
(Del)]. The relevant portion of paragraph No.17 reads as
under:
Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959
(b) CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY V.
SHANGRILA FOOD PRODUCTS LTD. [AIR 1960 SC
142]. Paragraph No.17 reads as under:
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14 July, 2020
(a) ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR V. KAILASH
KUSHANRAO GORAANTYAL AND ORS. [AIR 2020 SC
4908]. Paragraph 34 reads as under:
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. vs Mukesh Kumar P. & Ors. on 22 July, 2013
(b) SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. V.
MUKESH KUMAR P. AND ORS. [2013(55) PTC 209
(DEL)]. Paragraph 16 reads as under:
Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Laverana Gmbh And Co.Kg & Anr. on 28 January, 2016
"13. The expression 'common field of activity' was coined
by Wynne-Parry J. in McCulloch v. Levis A. May (Product
Distributors) Ltd. popularly known as 'Uncle Mac' case
reported in 65 RPC 58 in which he held that its presence
or absence was conclusive in determining whether or not
there was passing off.
Aktiebolaget Volvo Of Sweden vs Volvo Steels Ltd. Of Gujarat (India) on 16 October, 1997
(d) AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO OF SWEDEN V. VOLVO
STEELS LTD. OF GUJARAT (INDIA) [1998 PTC (18) 47
(BOM)]. Paragraph No.65 reads as under: