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

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

…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

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

…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…