Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Rahul Uttamsuryavanshi vs Sunil Manikchand Kasliwal on 30 September, 2016 cites

M/S. National Chemicals And Colour Co. ... vs Reckitt And Colman Of India Limited And ... on 12 April, 1990

26. The Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s.National Chemicals & Colour Co. & Ors. vs. Reckitt & Colman of India Limited & Anr. AIR 1991 Bombay 76 has held that one cannot compare two trade marks by putting them side by side and by trying to find out similarities and differences in the two marks. It is held that what one has to see is the overall impression which the trade mark gives, because this is what members of the public carry in their minds. I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that the trade name "SUPER MOR CHHAP" used by the defendant is not deceptive or phonetically similar to that of the trade mark and the trade name of the plaintiff.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 36 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004

Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that there is delay on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the Court for grant of injunction and thus the learned trial Court could not have granted an injunction at the belated stage, in view of the defendant using the said trade mark for last several years is concerned, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Limited & Anr. vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 90. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that in cases of infringement either of trade mark or of copyright, normally an injunction must follow. Mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such cases. The grant of injunction also becomes necessary if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the mark was itself dishonest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 411 - Full Document

M/S. Lokhandwala Construction ... vs M.S. Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. ... on 31 August, 2015

17. It is submitted that the neck of the peacock which is forming part of the trade mark of the plaintiff is tilting towards right whereas the neck of the peacock used by the defendant is tilting towards left. Reliance is also placed on sections 30 and 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He submits that the defendant had applied for registration of the trade mark 'SUPER MOR CHHAP' and abandoned the said application. He submits that the mere alleged delay in making an application for injunction is not sufficient to reject the application for injunction. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on the judgment of this court in case of Lokhandwala Construction Industries Pvt.Ltd. and another vs. Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. and others, 2016(1) Mh.L.J.221 and in particular paragraphs 11 and 15. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. and another vs.Sudhir Bhatia and others, (2004) 3 SCC 90 ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2016 00:47:41 ::: kvm 9/17 AO761.16 and in particular paragraphs 5 to 7.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - G S Patel - Full Document
1