...the case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J., in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was also a case of the comparison of two words-You...SONAMARSHAL in respect of similar goods not as the matter of co-incidence or accident but wilh deliberate and wilful attempt to pass off its goods as and for the real goods of the plaintiff and...application to register ‘Erec p73 tiks’ (opposed by the proprietors of the trade mark ‘Erector’) Farwell, J., said in William Bailey (Birmingham) Ltd.'s Application, (1935) 52 R.P.C 136...

...following observations of Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which have been quoted in various decisions, including Cadila Health Care Ltd., read thus....”25. The Court referred to the following observations in R.J Strasenburgh Co. v. Kenwood Laboratories, INC., 1955, 106 UPSQ 379:—‘The defendant concedes...such point at the hearing of the Appeal.31. Mr. Kadam, in this connection, referred to Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila...

...further that there is a similarity between the two including phonetical similarity. In order to appreciate this aspect of the case, it would be worthwhile to quote the observations of Parker, J., In re Pianotist Co.'s.... These observations of Parker, J. were approved by the Supreme Court in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta , AIR 1963 SC...Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Pepsi Cola Company of Canada Ltd., AIR 1942 PC 40, is not applicable because the facts of that case are quite different from the facts of the present case. In the Privy...

...the matter, all the circumstances of the case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J. in Re: Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 R.P.C 774 which was also a case of the...Bombay 3; Hindustan Lever Ltd.… v. Poineer Soap Factory…., 24 (1983) DLT 237, In Re: R.T Engineering and Electronics Co...order to ascertain the idea conveyed by the mark.10. Mr. Hemant Singh, placed reliance upon the judgments. In Re: Hudnut, 121 USPQ 636; Rosenblum v. George Willsher, 161...

...matter, all the circumstances of the case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J., in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was also a case of the comparison...is not in dispute. Therefore para 19 of the decision reported in London Rubber Co. Ltd. Durex Products Incorporated2 cited by the learned Sr. counsel is applicable in all fours and the same is...Rubber Co., Limited Durex Products Incorporated (Ref) 13 11. (1997) 4 SCC 201...

...trademark label MANGOto just to take the advantage of the good will of the applicant. As was observed by Parker, J., in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was...wide and beyond the scope of the actual services offered by the applicants and the very mention of the word MANGO in the hospitality business would normally be co-related with the applicant's hotels...to imperfect recollection. In the other matter of Gold Star Co. Ltd. v. Gold Star Industries & Ors 1995 PTC 15 18, The plaintiff has an...

...actual evidence of confusion : Likelihood (and even possibility) is sufficient. The following observations of Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which...). 6. Order dated 12th June 2002 in Appeal No. 498 of 2002, per AP Shah J (as he then was) and Smt NN Mhatre J. 7. 2008 (37) PTC 487 (Del.). 24th October 2016... carefully weighed than is possible at this stage. In the words of Denning LJ in Parker Knoll v Knoll International Ltd:18...

...14 reads thus; “As was observed by Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co. s Application (1906) 23 RPC 774 which was also a case of the comparison of two words...Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. and Co. Mysore, (1972) 3 SCR 289...Feeling aggrieved with rejection of an application- Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 01 of 2019 for temporary injunction by the Ad hoc District Judge-6, Pune on 19th July...

...Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta , AIR 1963 SC 449, a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court relied upon the test formulated in the judgment of Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co.'s...judgment of Waller, J. in Geigy A.G v. Chelsea Drug and Chemical Co. Ltd., (1966 RPC 64), wherein it was held that between the words BUTAZONE and BUTAZOLIDIN the possibility of...under which if mark had already been registered on the register. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Mody, J. in Himalaya Drug Co. v...

...at this stage was not thought advisable. Relevant portion of paragraphs 13 and 14 reads thus; 15 of 18 901-ao-1092-2019.doc As was observed by Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co. s...other if offered to him. These are broadly the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Parle Products (P) Ltd Vs. J.P & Co...1. Feeling aggrieved with rejection of an application-Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No.01 of 2019 for temporary injunction by the Ad- hoc District Judge-6, Pune on 19th July, 2019...

..., J in Re Pianotist Co.'s. Application4 on the question of passing off, the Amritdhara Court said: “You must take the two words. You must judge them, both by their look and by their sound. You must...decision of the Supreme Court in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449 Quoting the decision of Parker...care should be taken in the use of registration of trade marks to assure that no harmful confusion results”).24. In the case of R.J Strasenburgh Co. v. Kenwood...

...Parker, J. In re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was also a case of comparison of two words. Their Lordship's observed that the following circumstances were to be...Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J and T.S Sivagnanam, J.:— Challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), dated 24.12.2010, in ORA/248/08..., reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co...

...considering the matter, all the circumstances of the case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J., in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application...Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. vs. J.P. & Co., Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 1359 is the relevant...illiterate. As we said in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd , (1960) 1 SCR 968 : (AIR 1960...

...case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was also a case of the comparison of two words...pieces of truth known to him or because he may not even take the trouble to do so." The tests for comparison of the two word marks were formulated by Lord Parker in Pionotist Co., Ltd.'s...Marks and Trade Names, 9th ed., page 465, art. 852 and the decision Application by Thomas A. Smith Ltd., to, Register a trade mark(1913) 30 RPC 363. In that case Neville, J. held that the words "limit...

...market.”29. The Supreme Court there followed the celebrated observations of Parker, J., in In re, Pianotist Co.'s, (1906) 23 RPC 774 at p. 777 on the principles of..., Hawthorn & Co., Ltd., (1934) 52 RPC 15 and Re, William Bailey (Birmingham) Ltd.., Re. Gilbert & Co., (1935) 52 RPC 136. In fact, the general principle of trade...similarity. No doubt the lion is common to both: But even the pictorial re-presentation of the lion in either case is entirely distinct and separate. The majesty of the Goddess siting on the lion overwhelms...

...on the basis of the test postulated by Parker, J. in In re. Pianotist Co Application7, which has been followed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts times... CS(COMM) 383/2023 Page 1 of 17 $~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 383..., Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR J U D G M E N T (O R A L...

...confusion but the likelihood of confusion to be the test in guiding this matter. In the case of Re : Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774 Parker, J. observed as follows at...Registrar has refused the application of the appellant for grant of a trade mark. It appears that the appellant filed an application to register in part A of the register a trade mark consisting of the...word “FORMIS” in Class 3 in respect of ‘Cosmetics’. The application was in due course advertised before acceptance under the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act in the appropriate journal. On 7th June...

...recollect on of the whole.17. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vol. 38, page 588, paragraph 983 following it is stated that the rules for comparison are what Parker, J., said in (12) Re Pianotist Co.'s...distinctiveness, refuse registration in Part A, but would allow registration in Part B of the register.6. Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in re: (2) H.S Burford & Co. Ltd.'s...common name and no single person of that name was engaged in manufacturing motor cars or any parts of motor cars. Counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision (3) Teofani & Co. v. A...

...Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449, the Supreme Court heavily banked upon the observation of Parker, J. in the Pianotist Co.'s Application, Re, (1906) 23 RPC 774. The following observations of....(j) The Deputy Registrar has wrongly decided to proceed in favour of the respondent that the mark has been honestly conceived since the name of the respondent's daughter is ‘Asha...may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks.10. The Supreme Court in the initial years of our Republic in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. Janies...