Express Bottlers Services Private Ltd. v. Pepsico Inc. and Ors. 1989 (9) PTC 14 (Calcutta) Brief Facts: Respondent No. 1, Pepsico Inc., was a company incorporated under the appropriate laws of Delaware, in the United States of America and was the registered proprietor of the marks, “Pepsi Cola” “Pepsi” and “Pepsico”. Petitioner claimed to be…
Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. v. Fedders Corporation 2005 (30) PTC 353 (Del-DB) Facts: Under an agreement entered into between ‘Fedders Quiogan Corporation’ (the Respondent) and the then partnership firm, ‘M/s Llyod Electric and Engineering Company’, on 21st May 1956, a license to deal in air conditioners was granted to the latter for 5 years under…
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 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….
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 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)…
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…
Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Sita Chawal Udyog Mill 2010 (44) PTC 293 (DEL) Facts: The Plaintiff was user of the registered trademark ‘Double Deer’ with respect to the product rice since 1985. The Defendant was using the mark ‘Golden Deer’ with respect to rice. The Plaintiff filed an application for…
Pearl Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Pearl Education Society 2014 (58) PTC 26 (DEL) Facts: The Plaintiff, Pearl Retail Solutions, was user of the trade mark ‘Pearl Academy of Fashion’ in respect of an educational institute since 1993. The trademark was registered in 2005 with the disclaimer of the words ‘Academy of Fashion’. The Defendant…
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. 2009 (39) PTC 347 (DEL) Facts of the Case: The trade mark ‘THEOBID’ was registered in the name of one Natco Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited for medicines. The said trade mark was assigned to the Plaintiff along with its goodwill vide a deed of assignment in 1998. Plaintiff…
Jagdish Gopal Kamath and Ors. v. Lime & Chilli Hospitality Services IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Notice of motion no. 2586 of 2012 in Suit no. 2549 of 2012 Decided On: 11.03.2015 Facts: • Plaintiffs claimed to be the registered proprietors of the marks ‘Café Madras’ since 2005 in Classes 16 and 42. Plaintiffs…
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd. 2014 (57) PTC 617 (Bom) Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘FEVICOL MARINE’ and various other marks using the words ‘FEVICOL MARINE’. Plaintiff’s Registrations: Defendant was using the mark ‘JIVANJOR MARINE’ for identical products. The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant for…