Section 16 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of a position, vulnerability or the giving
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 566 (0.04 seconds)The Himalaya Drug Company vs M/S. S.B.L. Limited on 9 November, 2012
used by the defendant is
phonetically and structurally identical with or deceptively similar to Liv.52
thus the same is in violation of statutory ... similarity in the
two trademarks which is likely to cause confusion and deception and use of
the trade mark LIV-T by the defendant does
United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals ... on 18 May, 2012
removal was sought on the
ground that the said trademark FORZID was deceptively similar
to an earlier registered trademark, viz., ORZID (label mark),
standing registered ... proprietor, the use by any person, an identical or any other
mark deceptively similar thereto would amount to infringement
of the appellant‟s registered trademark
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs Aureate Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 30 July, 2012
plaintiff‟s case is
that in case of any use of a deceptively similar trademark, the
consequences of infringement under the provision of Section ... PANTAPRAZOLE
TABLETS AND INJECTIONS".
6. Any use of an identical or deceptively similar mark by
any other party would amount to infringement of trade
Deepalakshmi vs K.Murugesh Rep. By His on 20 July, 2012
delivery of any property. He would contend, if the accused had played deception and induced a person to act upon such deception ... cheat".
Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this Section
16.This provision came to be considered
Lt Foods Limited And Another vs Sulson Overseas Pvt Ltd on 2 July, 2012
other cereals under the trademark SONA or any other trademark which is
deceptively similar with the plaintiff's trademark. The said interim order ... trademark SONA
and the two trademarks of the parties are not deceptively
similar, hence no infringement and passing off.
(b) That the suit
Manju Monga vs Manju Mittal on 2 July, 2012
suffix,
MITTAL to her name in order to avoid any confusion and deception.
It was done since 10th March, 2011 after the receipt of legal ... Reddy cannot be accepted
since the same would lead to confusion and deception and
therefore the Defendant was restrained from adapting the
trade name REDDY
Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd vs Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad on 21 March, 2012
Ganesh
Trading Company and others3 laid down the following propositions for
judging deceptive similarity of products of rival trademark ... those packets, it is clear that the defendants' products are
deceptively similar to those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's playing cards
Kivi Labs Ltd vs Sun Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd on 1 October, 2012
1444 dated 16.07.2010. The defendant has adopted the mark KIMIXIDE which is deceptively similar to plaintiffs prior adopted and registered trademark AMIXIDE. On enquiry ... mark AMIXIDE. The act of the defendant in adopting an almost identical/deceptively similar trademark amounts to infringement of registered trademark and passing off. Hence
Icrave Llc vs Icrave Designs Pvt Ltd on 5 July, 2012
name ICRAVE or any other mark/name as may be confusingly or deceptively
similar to the said trade-mark/trade- name of the plaintiff ... sole intent to mislead the public and to cause confusion and deception
in their minds to make them falsely believe that the goods and services