WebDec 6, 2024 · Trademark has been defined in Section 2 (zb)of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as: “A mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods/services of one person from those of others and may include the shape of goods, their packaging, and combination of colors”. WebMay 9, 2000 · 5. The respondent-defendant contended in this interlocutory application that “cadbury's picnic” was introduced in 1998 for chocolates. It was registered earlier under …

Passing off under trademark - Legal Services India

WebFeb 24, 2008 · In S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. (2000(5) SCC 573) at paragraph 47 it was observed as follows: "For the above reasons, we hold that on the question of the relative strength, the decision must go in favour of the defendant that there is no infringement and the High Court was right in refusing temporary injunction. Point 5 is … http://courtverdict.com/supreme-court-of-india/ms-s-m-dyechem-ltd-vs-ms-cadbury-india-ltd fix scratched glass tile

Cadbury India Limited v/s S.M. Dyechem Limited - LawyerServices

WebA case of trademark infringement was thus filed by the plaintiff. The High Court held that the names were not deceptively similar and are two separate marks with a difference in their spelling and appearance. SM Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.10: In this case, plaintiff started a business of chips and wafers under the trademark "PIKNIK ... 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 ... WebA case of trademark infringement was thus filed by the plaintiff. The High Court held that the names were not deceptively similar and are two separate marks with difference in their spelling and appearance. SM Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.2. In this case, plaintiff started a business of chips and wafers under the trademark "PIKNIK ... can neighbor cut down tree limbs