Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)M/S. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr. on 13 October, 2014
6. It is also profitable to refer to the observations in
paragraph 19 as well as 20 of the same judgment.
The Delhi High Court in the said judgment observed that even
sophisticated consumers are not immune from confusion
under all circumstances. It was also stressed that degree of
similarity in the marks necessary to support a finding of
infringement is less than in the case of dissimilar or non
competing products. It is to be noted that in the case at hand,
both the appellant and the respondent are offering similar
services.
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
In this context, it is apposite to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene
Industries (P) Ltd and another v. Sudhir Bhatia and
others [(2004) 3 SCC 90]. Paragraph 5 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Chandrakant Sahu vs Coal India Limited 47 Wa/48/2018 Indra ... on 10 December, 2019
10. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmikant V.
Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and another [(2002)3 SCC 65].
He relied on the said judgment to contend that once a case of
passing off is made out, normally injunction shall be granted
to prevent the mischief.
1