Laxmikant v. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah

3 SCC 65Reported decision2002#20481 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Judgments citing Laxmikant v. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. PRAMADITYA

The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA/66/2024HC Delhi02 Sept 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 13Section 23

…regarded as impervious to interference. 15. The aspect of infringement 15.1 Infringement is defined in Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. The rival marks, in the present case, are HP of LC and HP+ and HP®+ of GE. The marks are practically identical. 13 (2002) 3 SCC 65 (para 14) Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Page 18 of 27 15.2 We are in agreement with Mr. Sai Deepak that the use of the ® superscript by GE, which is to be employed only where the mark is a registered trademark, is completely illegal and lacking in bona fides. The HP+ mark…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/111/2023HC Delhi07 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

Section 57Section 9(1)(a)

…e Petitioner neither sold nor marketed any pharmaceutical products under the mark REXCIN, had no goodwill or reputation in the market as on 2017, and produced no evidence of actual or likely consumer confusion despite long concurrent existence. 9 (2002) 3 SCC 65, at paragraph no. 10. Digitally Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:27.01.2026 17:51:05 Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023 & connected matter Page 29 of 35 VI. Statutory objections raised by the Petitioner under the Ac…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SH. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL

The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA/66/2024HC Rajasthan19 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 13Section 23

…regarded as impervious to interference. 15. The aspect of infringement 15.1 Infringement is defined in Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. The rival marks, in the present case, are HP of LC and HP+ and HP®+ of GE. The marks are practically identical. 13 (2002) 3 SCC 65 (para 14) Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Page 18 of 27 15.2 We are in agreement with Mr. Sai Deepak that the use of the ® superscript by GE, which is to be employed only where the mark is a registered trademark, is completely illegal and lacking in bona fides. The HP+ mark…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

ITA/82/2020HC Rajasthan14 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

…nfringing one. 212. As is the settled position in law, actual infringement or passing off is not required to be shown in trademark infringement, and even a likelihood of confusion and damage is sufficient. In Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65, the Supreme Court has held as under: “12. In Oertli v. Bowman [1957 RPC 388 (CA)] (at p. 397) the gist of passing-off action was defined by stating that it was essential to the success of any claim to passing-off based on the use of given mark or get-up that the plaintiff should be able to show that the disputed mark or get-up has become by u…

Laxmikant v. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah (3 SCC 65) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax