Hi-Tech Pipes Ltd. vs. Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (32) PTC 192 (Del.) Brief Facts: Plaintiff, Hi-Tech Pipes Ltd. was established in 1985 and started manufacturing steel pipes in 1988 under the trademark ‘Gujarat’. As per the Plaintiff, this trademark had acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness on account of its open, regular, continuous, extensive and…
Rich Products Corporation & Anr. v Indo Nippon Food Limited 2010 (44) PTC 515 (Del) Brief Facts: Rich Corporation (Appellant) was the registered proprietor of the mark “RICH’S WHIP TOPPING” for ‘non-dairy topping, icing, filling and generally for other goods’ in Class 30 of the Trade Mark Rules. Appellant claimed that the word mark “WHIP…
M/S. Jain Electronics v. Cobra Cables Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. 2011 (45) PTC 52 (Del) Brief Facts: On 19th November 1987, Jain Electronics (Petitioner) applied to register the mark “COBRA” in respect of voltage stabilizer and parts and fittings thereof included in Class 9 and the said mark were subsequently advertised in the trademarks journal…
Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra and Ors. 2006 (32) PTC 301 Del Brief Facts: Plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction for passing off and unfair competition. Plaintiff had approached the Delhi High Court and claimed it’s jurisdiction to entertain and try the Plaintiff’s suit on account of two factors: (a) The first factor…
National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. PTC (Suppl) (1) 475 (SC) Full Bench Brief Facts: Appellant, was a company registered in India. Respondent was a company registered in England carrying business of manufacturing cotton sewing thread. One of the trade marks used by the Respondent on such thread consisted of…
Kamal Trading Co. and Ors. v. Gillette U.K. Ltd. 1988 (8) PTC 1 (BOM) Brief facts: Respondent was a subsidiary of an American company, Gillette Company, in U.K. The Gillette Company and its subsidiaries had been carrying on worldwide business of manufacture and sale of safety razor blades, safety razors, shaving cream, shaving brushes, etc….
Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar Co. AIR 1978 Delhi 250 Brief Facts: Appellant manufactured voiles which were processed by Respondent No.3 (out of 3 Respondents) from the year 1973 until the end of the year 1975. It was claimed that the Appellant had directed Respondent No.3 to put the trade mark in question, “RAJA…
D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House and Ors. CS(OS) No. 893/2002 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Decided On: 29.04.2010 Facts: Plaintiff company was incorporated in 1996, in which the letters ‘DM’ stand for the initials of the name, Daler Mehndi. The company was originally incorporated to manage Mr….
Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del) Facts: Plaintiff was a company established in the year 1987 as a joint venture between TATA group and the Tamil Nadu industrial Development Corporation and was engaged in manufacturing and marketing watches, clocks and jewellery. Plaintiff was using the brand ‘TANISHQ’ in relation…
Tata Sons Limited v. Mr. Manu Kosuri & Ors. 2001 PTC 432 (Del) Brief Facts: • The Plaintiff was the Registered Proprietor of the trademark ‘TATA’ since 1917 and is one of the oldest and largest business conglomerates in India and its reputation spilled globally. • The Defendants’ misappropriated the Plaintiff’s trademark TATA as part…
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 SC 980 Full Bench Brief Facts: • Respondent firm was founded in 1926 under the name of “Navaratna Pharmacy” later changed to “Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories” in 1945. Respondent was a manufacturer of medicinal products and proprietor of two registered trademarks “Navaratna” and “Navaratna Pharmaceutical…
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. Manu Kosuri & Anr. 2001 (58) DRJ 241 Brief Facts: • Plaintiff company was established in the year 1984 for research and development activity in the field of medicine • Plaintiff company had registered a domain name ‘drreddys.com’. • In the month of January, 1999, Plaintiff came to know that…