Cadila Health Care Ltd vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2001 PTC 541 (SC) Brief Facts of the case: the plaintiff and the defendant are carrying on their activities in pharmaceutical products respectively in the name and style of “CADILA HEALTH CARE LIMITED” and “CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED” with the word “CADILA” being common first name respectively. It […]
Brief Facts: Respondents through their predecessors in interest were using the mark ‘Profol’ in India since 1998 for pharmaceutical product. In 2005, Respondents came to know that the Defendant have launched a drug called ‘ROFOL’ for identical product. Respondents filed a suit for passing off against the Appellant. The Trial Court granted a temporary injunction […]
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. & Ors. Court: Supreme Court of India Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5375-5377 of 2017 Order dated: 14th December, 2017 Facts of the case: The Plaintiff is an automobile manufacturer incorporated under the laws prevailing in Japan. A Civil Suit [CS (OS) No. 2490 of […]
International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) v. Iskcon Appaeral (P) Ltd. (Decided on 26-06-2020)
In a trademark infringement suit filed by ISCKON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) against Isckon Apparel Pvt Ltd for using the mark “ISKCON” in respect of various goods and services, ISCKON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) has been granted the status of Well-known trademark under Section 2 (1) (zg) of Trademarks Act, 1999. The […]
Christian Louboutin SAS Vs. Abubaker and Ors.
Decide on: 11.04.2019 FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant (Plaintiff), a company duly incorporated under the existing laws of France, having its registered office at Paris against the Defendants who are located in Mumbai. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff’s trademark, passing off, unfair competition, […]
Horlicks Ltd. &Anr. Vs. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2018) 9 SCC 183 Court: Supreme Court Order dated: 17.12.2018. Facts of the Case: The plaintiff has filed the Suit against the first defendant for illegal disparagement of its goods. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the disparagement is being continued on the electronic as well as print media through the […]
