Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2001 PTC 541 (SC) Full Bench Brief Facts: Appellant and Respondent were Pharmaceutical companies who had taken over the assets and business of erstwhile Cadila Group after its restructuring under Section 391 & 394 of the Companies Act. One of the conditions in the scheme of restructuring…
M/s. Hindustan Radiators Co. vs. Hindustan Radiators Limited 1987 PTC 73 Brief Facts: Plaintiff, M/s. Hindustan Radiators Co., Station Road, Jodhpur was a partnership concern which was carrying its business since 1959 and was engaged in manufacturing various types of radiators to be used in vehicles like buses, trucks, jeeps, cars, cranes, compressors, etc. under…
McCain International Ltd. v. Country Fair Foods Ltd. 1981 RPC 69 Brief Facts: In January 1979, McCain International Limited(Plaintiff) launched in the market chipped potatoes and conducted an extensive advertising campaign in which they referred consistently and accurately to ‘McCain Oven Chips’ in the same way as they so referred consistently extensively and accurately in…
American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 1986 (6) PTC 71(SC) Brief Facts: American Home Products Corporation (Appellant), was an American multi-national corporation dealing in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. (“the Indian Company”) was a company registered as a public limited company in India. In 1956 the…
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…
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…