Nirma Limited v. Nimma International and Anr.

Nirma Limited v. Nimma International and Anr. 2010 (42) PTC 307 (Del) Facts: Plaintiff (Nirma Ltd.), was the proprietor of the trademarks ‘Nirma’ and ‘Nima’, registered in 1979 and 1982 respectively, under the class dealing with detergent powder, toilet soaps, etc. Plaintiff was aggrieved by the Defendants’ (Nimma International and Anr.) use of the marks…

|

Chanel Ltd. v. Sunder Chemicals Agarbati Works (P) Ltd. and Anr.

Chanel Ltd. v. Sunder Chemicals Agarbati Works (P) Ltd. and Anr. 2003 (26) PTC 52 (Delhi) Brief Facts: Plaintiff, Chanel Ltd., was a foreign company manufacturing and marketing various types of perfumes and cosmetics and has acquired a worldwide reputation for its trademark CHANEL. The pronunciation of the trade mark CHANEL starts with a “sh”…

|

Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Lachmi Narain Trades and Ors.

Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Lachmi Narain Trades and Ors. 2008 (36) PTC 223 (Del) (DB) Facts: Appellant (Larsen and Toubro Ltd.) was engaged in diverse business activities, with subsidiaries using the prefix ‘LandT’ for over half a century. It applied for registering the marks ‘Larsen and Toubro’ and ‘LandT’, the applications of which were…

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. M/S. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. M/S. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills; 2009 (41) PTC 184 (Cal) (FB) Facts: The Plaintiff/Appellant, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha, was a Japanese Co. (also known as Sony Corporation) engaged in manufacturing and selling diverse range of electronic goods including video and audio equipment, televisions, etc. under the trademark ‘SONY’. Defendant/Respondent (M/S. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills)…

|

Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. & Ors. v. Vidya Batra & Ors.

Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. & Ors. v. Vidya Batra & Ors. 1998 (18) PTC 646 (Del) Brief Facts: Plaintiff No. 1 was a partnership firm involved in manufacturing wires, cables/electric cables and insulated wires. Plaintiff No. 1 enjoyed goodwill for its quality products under the registered trademark “Grandlay Cables”. Plaintiff No. 2 and four others…

|

Bikanervala v. New Bikanerwala

Bikanervala v. New Bikanerwala 2005 (30) PTC 113 (Del) Facts of the case: The Plaintiff is a partnership firm involved in manufacturing and marketing ethnic food including sweets and namkeens since 100 years. In 1981, they opened an outlet in Karol Bagh under the trade mark “Bikanervala”. In 1992, Plaintiff also adopted an artistic label…

Geepee Ceval Proteins and Investment Private Limited v. Saroj Oil Industry

Geepee Ceval Proteins and Investment Private Limited v. Saroj Oil Industry 2003 (27) PTC 190 (Delhi) Brief Facts: Plaintiff was a company engaged in the manufacture of edible oil, since 1997, being sold under the trade mark ‘Chambal’. In 1997-1998, Plaintiff’s turn-over was about Rs. 113 crores and in 2003 at around Rs. 241 crores….

|

Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

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

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…

|

Dabur India Ltd. v. K. R. Industries

Dabur India Ltd. v. K. R. Industries AIR 2008 SC 3123 Brief Facts: The Appellant, Dabur India Ltd., manufactured a product known as ‘Dabur Red Tooth Powder’ or ‘Dabur Lal Dant Manjan’. The Appellant claimed copyright in the ‘carton’ of the product and alleged that the said ‘carton’ constitutes an ‘artistic work’ under Section 2(c)…

|

Kamal Trading Co. and Ors. v. Gillette U.K. Ltd.

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….