CASE LIST

No explanation given by the infringer towards adoption of mark, creates an inference of dishonest adoption.
  • Cadbury India Limited and Ors. Vs. Neeraj Food Products; 2007 (35) PTC 95 (Del) (Para 59)
Without a plausible explanation towards the adoption of trade mark, the adoption of trade mark is dishonest.
  • Kamal Trading Co vs. Gillette UK Ltd. 1988 PTC 1 [Summary]
  • Apple Computer, Inc. vs. Apple Leasing & Industries 1992 (1) Arb. LR 93
  • Aktiebolaget Volvo vs. Volvo Steels Limited 1998 PTC 47
  • Alfred Dunhill Limited vs. Kartar Singh Makkar & Ors. 1999 PTC 294 [Summary]
If the adoption is dishonest no amount of user can cleanse the vice of dishonesty.
  • Parkington’s Application (1946) 63 RPC 171 at 181/182
  • Win-Medicare Pvt. Ltd. v. Galpha Laboratories Ltd, and Ors., 2016 (65) PTC 506 (Del) (Para 29)
  • Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. vs. India Stationery Products Co. & Anr. AIR 1990 Del 19
  • Hidesign vs. M/s. Hi-design Creations 1991 PTC 178
  • Apple Computer, Inc. vs. Apple Leasing & Industries 1992 (1) Arb. LR 93
In case of dishonest adoption, delay does not affect the rights of the proprietor of the trademark.
  • Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd vs. India Stationary Products Co. AIR 1990 Delhi 19
  • Apple Computer, Inc. vs. Apple Leasing & Industries 1992 (1) Arb. LR 93 at 131 (Para 39)
  • Allergan, Inc. vs. Milment Oftho Industries & Ors. AIR 1998 Calcutta 261 (Calcutta DB)
  • Chanel Ltd vs. Sunder Chemicals Agarbati Works (P) Ltd & Anr. 2003 (26) PTC 52 (Delhi) [Summary]
  • Glossy Color & Paints Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs. Mona Aggarwal & Ors.
When the party is guilty of dishonest, it should not be permitted to use the mark by making some alteration.
  • Kamal Trading Co vs. Gillette UK Ltd. 1988 PTC 1 [Summary]