Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court dismisses appeal on trademark infringement, emphasizing lack of distinctiveness for "LOW ABSORB" and statutory defenses.

        Marico Limited Versus Agro Tech Foods Limited

        Marico Limited Versus Agro Tech Foods Limited - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Infringement of Trademark
        2. Passing Off
        3. Validity of Registration
        4. Distinctiveness of Trademark
        5. Statutory Defenses to Infringement Action

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Infringement of Trademark:
        The court examined whether the appellant's registered trademarks "LOSORB" and "LO-SORB" were infringed by the respondent's use of the phrase "LOW ABSORB." The court held that the respondent's use of "LOW ABSORB" was descriptive and did not amount to trademark infringement. The court also noted that the respondent prominently displayed its own trademark "Sundrop," which further differentiated its product from the appellant's.

        2. Passing Off:
        The court referred to the Division Bench decision in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., which held that descriptive terms like "Sugar Free" cannot be exclusively owned. Applying this reasoning, the court concluded that "LOW ABSORB" is a common descriptive term and not a coined word, thus the appellant cannot claim exclusive rights over it. The court found no likelihood of confusion between the appellant's and respondent's products, as the packaging and trademarks were sufficiently distinct.

        3. Validity of Registration:
        The court scrutinized the validity of the appellant's trademark registrations, noting that the trademarks "LOSORB" and "LO-SORB" were registered on a "proposed to be used" basis without evidence of distinctiveness at the time of registration. The court held that these trademarks were prima facie invalid as they were minor variations of the descriptive term "LOW ABSORB."

        4. Distinctiveness of Trademark:
        The court analyzed whether the appellant's trademarks had acquired distinctiveness. It concluded that the appellant had not used the trademarks "LOSORB" and "LO-SORB" for a sufficiently long period to acquire distinctiveness. The court emphasized that descriptive trademarks require extensive and undisturbed use over many years to achieve distinctiveness, which was not the case here.

        5. Statutory Defenses to Infringement Action:
        The court considered the statutory defenses under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trademarks Act, which allow the use of descriptive terms in a bona fide manner. The court found that the respondent's use of "LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY" was descriptive and not as a trademark, thus falling within the statutory defenses. The court also noted that the respondent had removed the "TM" symbol from "LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY," indicating no intent to use it as a trademark.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal was dismissed, with the court holding that the appellant did not have a prima facie case for trademark infringement or passing off. The court emphasized the importance of not granting exclusive rights over descriptive terms and upheld the statutory defenses available to the respondent. The court also noted that the appellant's trademarks were prima facie invalid due to lack of distinctiveness at the time of registration.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found