Significant judgments under the trademark act
Supreme Court of India | April 27, 1962 | AIR 1963 SC 449 S.K. Das, M. Hidayatullah & J.C. Shah, JJ. Background Amritdhara Pharmacy had been selling a popular ayurvedic medicinal preparation under the mark “Amritdhara” since 1901 (initially as “Amrit Ki Dhara,” later changed to “Amritdhara” in 1903). The medicine was introduced by Pandit
Supreme Court of India | B.N. Kirpal, Doraswamy Raju & Brij Kumar JJ. | 26 March 2001 AIR 2001 SC 1952 | 2001 (5) SCC 73 | Civil Appeal No. 2372 of 2001 Background Both the appellant Cadila Healthcare Limited and the respondent Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited were successor companies that had acquired the assets and
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Read More »
High Court of Judicature at Madras | Decided: 10 September 2012 O.S.A. Nos. 406 and 407 of 2010 Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Jyothimani & Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Duraiswamy (Division Bench) Citation: 2013 (53) PTC 1 (Mad) | 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 4582 Background Consim Info Pvt. Ltd., the appellant in both appeals, is
Consim Info Pvt. Ltd. v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Read More »
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Division Bench) | Decided: 10 August 2023 | FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022 & FAO(OS)(COMM) 22/2022 | Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan Background Google LLC, the appellant in FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022, owns and operates the Google Search Engine and the Google Ads Programme (formerly AdWords).
Decided: 10 September 2014 FAO(OS) 281/2014 Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta Background Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, Chicago and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products in India. The trademark ‘ANAFORTAN’ had originally been used by Khandelwal Laboratories
Raj Kumar Prasad & Anr. v. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Read More »
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 3 October 2008 IA No. 6872 of 2008 in CS(OS) No. 1073 of 2008 Presiding Judge: Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw Background Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, the plaintiff, held a registered trade mark THEOBID in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The trade mark was originally registered
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v. Cipla Limited Read More »
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Division Bench) | Decided: 9 November 2012 | RFA (OS) No. 90 of 2010 Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh Background The Himalaya Drug Company, the appellant, is the owner of the trade mark Liv.52, registered under registration number 180564 in Class
Supreme Court of India | Decided: 26 July 2018 Civil Appeal Nos. 2937–2942 & 2943–2944 of 2018 Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Citation: AIR 2018 SC 3516 | (2018) 9 SCC 183 Background Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, the respondent, is a cooperative federation of milk producers
Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. Read More »
Delhi High Court | Gita Mittal J. | 25 May 2007 | Citation: 142 (2007) DLT 724 | 2007 (35) PTC 95 (Del) | MIPR 2007 (2) 269 BACKGROUND The plaintiffs, Cadbury India Limited and its associated entity, are engaged in the manufacture and sale of confectionery and chocolate products in India, forming part of
Cadbury India Limited & Ors. v. Neeraj Food Products Read More »
Delhi High Court | J.D. Kapoor J. | 29 October 2003 108 (2003) DLT 51 | 2003(27)PTC478(Del) Background Colgate Palmolive Company (Plaintiff No. 1), a US-incorporated multinational and its Indian subsidiary/licensee Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. (Plaintiff No. 2) had been manufacturing and selling tooth powder in India since 1951 in distinctively shaped cans bearing a
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Read More »