Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plaintiff uses the mark ‘JANGEER’, whereas the mark of the defendant includes an ‘I’ in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e., ‘JANGID’. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely different. The added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct from the plaintiff’s mark.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court observed that the involvement of the complainant remains a matter of judicial discretion rather than an enforceable entitlement, and the fundamental principle of juvenile justice i.e., ‘rehabilitation over retribution’ must remain paramount in any such determination.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“By selling counterfeit medical products, the defendants have not only inflicted substantial financial loss upon the plaintiff but have also misled the consumers who purchased these products under the false belief that they were genuine. Given the gravity of the infringement and the extent of harm caused, compensatory damages alone would be inadequate to compensate the plaintiff.”

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The infringing materials found on the site of the defendant are counterfeit goods of the plaintiff’s products, affixed with the plaintiff’s registered marks. A clear indicative of the counterfeiting activity towards the plaintiff’s products, are the observations and photographs as attached by the Local Commissioner in its report.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is manifest that defendant 1 had direct knowledge of the plaintiffs’ RAMADA brand at the time of adoption of the impugned mark. The defendant’s justification for adopting the mark ‘RAMADA’ is an afterthought, and lacks bona fide intent, as it fails to provide any tenable rationale for its selection.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“In a large number of customs matters, the Counsels are either not appearing or appear without proper instructions. In cases of non-appearance, the Court is compelled to request Standing Counsels present in Court to accept notice. This reflects a clear lack of coordination between the Department and the learned panel of Standing Counsels. Such a practice is highly undesirable and leads to gross wastage of judicial time.”

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

On perusal of the arrest memo shows that though there is column providing for ‘reasons of arrest’ against which it is stated “for the purpose of fair investigation” but neither there is column for ‘grounds of arrest’ in the arrest memo nor it is the case of the prosecution that the ‘grounds of arrest’ were separately served upon the present petitioner at the time of his arrest.”

Continue reading
Rouse Avenue District Court
Case BriefsDistrict Court

It is the applicant’s case that he had undergone the aforesaid spinal surgery involving insertion of screws, at VNA Hospital, on 15-01-2025 and was admitted there till 20-01-2025, after which he continues to be in severe pain and has been advised bed rest for 6 weeks, as recently as on 17-02-2025.

Continue reading
Calcutta High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

A PIL was filed seeking a direction upon the railway administration to introduce at least four additional metro services between 9:40 p.m. and 10:40 p.m. on the Blue Line of Kolkata Metro Railway, covering the route from Dakshineshwar to Kavi Subhas Stations.

Continue reading
Jubilant Generics
Case BriefsDistrict Court

The plaintiff alleged that Jamp Pharma breached the agreement by sharing the product dossiers with the defendants i.e., Indian pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the said products for Jamp Pharma. Since these defendants were not parties to the original agreements, the plaintiff contended that their use of the product dossiers constituted copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets.

Continue reading