Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
It is the case of the plaintiff that an unknown person/person, arraigned in the suit as Defendant 2 has started a YouTube channel under the name of ‘@AnajanaomKashya’
It is permissible for an advertiser to undertake an advertising campaign to promote its own product so long as the same is not deliberately tarnishing or defaming the competitor’s product.
“Once the mechanism under MSME Act is triggered by any party, the procedure has to be taken to its logical end. However, once there is no trigger by invoking the jurisdiction of the Council, party cannot be precluded from resorting to any other mechanism for resolution of its disputes.”
Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that a person cannot transfer a right greater than he himself has, but the same does not preclude the co-owner from transferring his share in the joint property only because the same is unpartitioned/undivided.
“Any confusion between the edible products, if allowed to continue, can lead to disastrous consequences on human health. Therefore, the Court must adopt more cautious and stringent approach for judging the likelihood of confusion and to exercise greater care.”
The plaintiffs submitted that the defendants, by manufacturing, using, displaying, advertising lookalike of the plaintiffs’ well-known products, are trying to create an unauthorized association with the plaintiffs, and deceive customers to believe that the plaintiffs have launched an affordable new range of products.
The right to travel has been held by the Supreme Court as an integral part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and any restriction of the same without sufficient cause, would amount to a violation of his fundamental rights.
“This case presents a sad and shocking state of affairs, a disturbing pattern wherein an officer was being repeatedly victimized, not only after his superannuation but also after his death.”
“The Sentence Review Board (‘SRB’) deals with human beings, that too those who have been deprived of liberty across a long span of time on account of their aggression which led to criminality. The approach of the SRB ought to be reformation oriented and not a routine disposal/statistic dominated exercise.”
The Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit a premise, as petitioner the petitioner apprehended that the respondent was likely to remove all evidence to deny its involvement in infringing activities.
“The registration of the impugned domain names by Defendant 1 would be prejudicial to public interest as the Defendant 1 is seeking to monopolize the mark, which was announced by the Insurance Regulator IRDAI for a specific purpose in public interest.”
The lawyer was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to 18 months of simple imprisonment under Section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 for outraging the modesty of a woman.
The Ph.D. degree which was awarded to Respondent 5 did not presuppose acquisition of lower qualification, i.e. master’s degree in Ayurveda. Respondent 5 was admitted to Ph.D. course without undergoing the master’s degree course immediately after obtaining his graduation degree in Ayurveda.
“While it is correct that for purposes of invoking jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it is not necessary for the child to be a permanent resident of the place and even a temporary residence shall suffice, such temporary residence should not be illegal or forceful.”
“In the present case, despite the clear statement given by the survivor that the relationship between the appellant and herself was consensual in nature, he has been convicted under the POCSO Act only for the reason that on the date of incident she was less than 18 years of age.”
“The driving force and character of a school is rooted not in profit maximisation but in public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children. The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise.”
“The fact that IndiaMART provides an option for a seller to choose the brand of its products specifically describing its goods cannot, prima facie, be held to be a ground to hold that it aids and abets the infringer in displaying the counterfeit products of a particular brand.”
The Court noted that the complainant (‘victim’) and her mother, were currently exploring matrimonial prospects, and that the pendency of a criminal case might result as a serious impediment to her future opportunities and personal relationships.
The plaintiffs submitted that the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks are widely recognized and known among Indian consumers, especially in the hospitality and travel industry. The plaintiffs have promoted their respective trade marks heavily and have been recognized and given multiple awards and accolades.
The Court highlighted that some of the petitioners have scored good percentile and further, some of them are even from the marginalised sections of the society. They will be deprived of participation in counselling and consequent admission to the course and institute of their choice for reasons beyond their control, as the result of class 12 is yet to be declared by NIOS.