WebLLC v Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd,4 the appeals court must not ‘usurp the jurisdiction of the Single Judge’; it must confine itself to an adjudication of whether the impugned order was or was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 SM Dyechem Ltd v Cadbury India Ltd, (2000) 5 SCC 573; Anand Prasad WebCurrently under the Insolvency Resolution Process in terms of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016. Mr. Ashish Kanodia, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL. 5, Hetal Apartment, …
Trade Mark Laws Are A Picnic Business Standard News
WebMar 8, 2024 · Additionally, the two companies dealt with different classes of goods which created no room for doubt or confusion in the minds of consumers. Similarly, in the case of SM Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd, it was held that the trademarks ‘PIKNIK’ and ‘PICNIC’ were not deceptively similar since they differed in appearance and composition … WebSep 5, 2000 · Petitioner: M/s. S.M. Dyechem Ltd. Respondent: M/s. Cadbury (India) Ltd. Apeal: Civil Appeal No.3341 of 2000 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15398/99) (From the … css 可拖动大小
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW MANAGEMENT
WebSimilarly in King & Co. Ltd. vs. Gillard and Co. Ltd. [22 RPC 327] and Cadbury-Schweppes pty Ltd. vs. The Pub. Squash Ltd. (1981) RPC 429, it was held that the presence of defendant's name on his goods was an indication that there was no passing off, even if … WebOct 22, 2024 · The case of trademark infringement was filed by the plaintiff. The High Court held that the names have not been in a category of deceptive similarity. These both are … WebJun 17, 2024 · Case: SM Dyechem Ltd. V. Cadbury (India) Ltd. In this case, the applicant has commenced a business of selling & chips under the Trademark name “PIKNIK”. Later on, the defendant has also initiated the business of chocolates under the brand name “PICNIC”. A suit was filed alleging a Trademark violation has been done. early childhood center johnston ri