Bar and Bench’s Law School Photography Competition
Similar Posts
Kumar Electric Works v. Anuj Electronics
Kumar Electric Works v. Anuj Electronics 1990 PTC 26 Plaintiff was a partnership firm. Vinod Kumar, Satish Kumar, T.C. Kumar end Raj Kumar were its partners. It was engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of electrical and electronics goods since the year 1979. In 1983 it started using Trade Mark “OLYMPUS” for its…
Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors.
Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors. 2015 (62) PTC 64 [Del] Brief Facts: Defendants released the below mentioned advertisement. In the said advertisement, the Defendant compared Eveready LED Bulb with Havells LED Bulb. Plaintiffs filed a Suit for Disparagement against the Plaintiff. Along with the suit, the Plaintiffs also filed an…
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 394 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant officially adopted the name Toshiba Corporation only in 1984, it had registered (and was using) the mark “TOSHIBA” in a number of countries (including India) way back in 1953. Since 1953, the Appellant had acquired about 35 trademark registrations…
Dabur India Limited Vs Emami Limited
Dabur India Limited Vs.Emami Limited 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del) Plaintiff was the manufacturer of Dabur Chayawanprash. Plaintiff had a market share of 63% of the total market of Chayawanprash in India. Defendant was also engaged in the manufacture of various ayurvedic formulations including Chayawanprash. Defendant was manufacturing the said Chayawanprash under the brand name…
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors.
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors. 2015 (64) PTC 225 (SC) Brief Facts: Respondents through their predecessors in interest were using the mark ‘Profol’ in India since 1998 for pharmaceutical product. In 2005, Respondents came to know that the Defendant have launched a drug called ‘ROFOL’ for identical product. Respondents filed a suit for…
Koninklijke Philips Electronics Ltd. v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics Ltd. v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd. C-299/99 European Court of Justice Brief Facts: Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the following shape mark: In 1966, Philips developed a new type of three headed rotary electric shaver. The three headed shape was registered as a trade mark in the year 1985. In 1995,…
Kumar Electric Works v. Anuj Electronics
Kumar Electric Works v. Anuj Electronics 1990 PTC 26 Plaintiff was a partnership firm. Vinod Kumar, Satish Kumar, T.C. Kumar end Raj Kumar were its partners. It was engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of electrical and electronics goods since the year 1979. In 1983 it started using Trade Mark “OLYMPUS” for its…
Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors.
Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors. 2015 (62) PTC 64 [Del] Brief Facts: Defendants released the below mentioned advertisement. In the said advertisement, the Defendant compared Eveready LED Bulb with Havells LED Bulb. Plaintiffs filed a Suit for Disparagement against the Plaintiff. Along with the suit, the Plaintiffs also filed an…
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 394 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant officially adopted the name Toshiba Corporation only in 1984, it had registered (and was using) the mark “TOSHIBA” in a number of countries (including India) way back in 1953. Since 1953, the Appellant had acquired about 35 trademark registrations…
Dabur India Limited Vs Emami Limited
Dabur India Limited Vs.Emami Limited 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del) Plaintiff was the manufacturer of Dabur Chayawanprash. Plaintiff had a market share of 63% of the total market of Chayawanprash in India. Defendant was also engaged in the manufacture of various ayurvedic formulations including Chayawanprash. Defendant was manufacturing the said Chayawanprash under the brand name…
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors.
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors. 2015 (64) PTC 225 (SC) Brief Facts: Respondents through their predecessors in interest were using the mark ‘Profol’ in India since 1998 for pharmaceutical product. In 2005, Respondents came to know that the Defendant have launched a drug called ‘ROFOL’ for identical product. Respondents filed a suit for…
Koninklijke Philips Electronics Ltd. v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics Ltd. v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd. C-299/99 European Court of Justice Brief Facts: Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the following shape mark: In 1966, Philips developed a new type of three headed rotary electric shaver. The three headed shape was registered as a trade mark in the year 1985. In 1995,…
Kumar Electric Works v. Anuj Electronics
Kumar Electric Works v. Anuj Electronics 1990 PTC 26 Plaintiff was a partnership firm. Vinod Kumar, Satish Kumar, T.C. Kumar end Raj Kumar were its partners. It was engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of electrical and electronics goods since the year 1979. In 1983 it started using Trade Mark “OLYMPUS” for its…
Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors.
Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors. 2015 (62) PTC 64 [Del] Brief Facts: Defendants released the below mentioned advertisement. In the said advertisement, the Defendant compared Eveready LED Bulb with Havells LED Bulb. Plaintiffs filed a Suit for Disparagement against the Plaintiff. Along with the suit, the Plaintiffs also filed an…
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 394 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant officially adopted the name Toshiba Corporation only in 1984, it had registered (and was using) the mark “TOSHIBA” in a number of countries (including India) way back in 1953. Since 1953, the Appellant had acquired about 35 trademark registrations…
Dabur India Limited Vs Emami Limited
Dabur India Limited Vs.Emami Limited 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del) Plaintiff was the manufacturer of Dabur Chayawanprash. Plaintiff had a market share of 63% of the total market of Chayawanprash in India. Defendant was also engaged in the manufacture of various ayurvedic formulations including Chayawanprash. Defendant was manufacturing the said Chayawanprash under the brand name…
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors.
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors. 2015 (64) PTC 225 (SC) Brief Facts: Respondents through their predecessors in interest were using the mark ‘Profol’ in India since 1998 for pharmaceutical product. In 2005, Respondents came to know that the Defendant have launched a drug called ‘ROFOL’ for identical product. Respondents filed a suit for…
Koninklijke Philips Electronics Ltd. v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics Ltd. v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd. C-299/99 European Court of Justice Brief Facts: Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the following shape mark: In 1966, Philips developed a new type of three headed rotary electric shaver. The three headed shape was registered as a trade mark in the year 1985. In 1995,…