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 … WebAug 24, 1999 · A.M. KAPADIA, J. (1) APPELLANT, Cadbury India Limited, having lost the legal battle against respondent SM Dyechem Limited in the lower Court, has knocked the …
S.M Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. - Casemine
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 … WebThe judgement of the Supreme Court in S M Dyechem Ltd vs Cadbury (India) Ltd delivered last fortnight tries to clarify the state of law on trade marks and `passing off action', … dr scharstein florence sc
Infringement of Registered Trade Mark in India - HG.org
WebAug 5, 2008 · M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs. M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd. Date: May 9, 2000 Held: In the present suit or in the application, the respondent could not raise a defence that the registration of the plaintiff’s trade mark was “invalid” on the ground that the word PIKNIK was not “distinctive” and that it was akin to a dictionary word or that the ... WebIn the case of S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. [4] In this case an infringement action is fail where plaintiff cannot prove registration or that its registration extends to the … WebIn S.M Dyechem ltd v Cadbury India Ltd, Supreme Court observed that the plaintiff must prove that essential features of the mark must be copied by the defendant. The onus to prove deception is on the plaintiff whoa alleges the deception. The mark is said to be infringed if the defendant, using the mark as whole or partly, copied the essential ... dr scharnow hargesheim