Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The petitioner contended that he was undergoing training in South Africa to become a commercial pilot and was sharing a dormitory with other students who frequently borrowed his baggage for trips to shooting ranges for target practice.
Overwriting of the date on the cheque has not been considered as a material interpolation meriting dishonour of the cheque.
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.
Defendant 3 has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trade marks/artistic works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks/labels without any plausible explanation.
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.
The petitioner has filed an affidavit of the authorized representative of an independent investigating agency to support its averments regarding non-use of the impugned mark by Respondent 1 in relation to the services in class 35 for nearly 8 years up to the date of filing of the present petition.
“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.”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
Amit Malviya had filed a criminal defamation complaint before the Patiala House Court against Santanu Sinha, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) member, regarding Facebook posts made by him.
The jurisdiction available to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is primarily in the nature of superintendence and accordingly the Letters Patent Appeal will not lie in the instant matter.
The statutory mandate under Section 23 of the JJ Act must be strictly adhered to, ensuring that children in conflict with law are not subjected to joint proceedings with adults, regardless of whether they are being tried under the procedure applicable to adults.
In criminal jurisprudence, the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is significantly higher than the preponderance of probabilities applicable in civil cases.
Since the Call Detail Records and location data have only been ordered to be preserved and not disclosed, there is no basis for the petitioner’s apprehension that this would provide an undue advantage to the defence. The direction simply ensures that potentially relevant evidence is not lost due to automatic deletion.
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.”
The act of the defendants of playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the plaintiff holds the copyright would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in terms of Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
It is unfortunate that despite directions from Supreme Court and this Court, the trial has not yet concluded. This was unacceptable, considering that such directions were passed while disposing of the bail application, and the accused is in judicial custody for over 10 years. Such prolonged delay in compliance with judicial directions defeats the very purpose of directing expeditious trial.
Public transport, which is meant to ensure mobility and independence, instead became a site of fear and vulnerability for the victim, and any undue leniency to an accused caught at the spot, may embolden any future for perpetrators.
Upon careful comparison of the plaintiff’s trade dress and that of the defendants, it became apparent that the overall colour scheme, get-up and layout of the defendants’ impugned packaging is nearly identical to that of the plaintiff’s trade dress.
The Court held that Moonshine had demonstrated a prima facie case for a grant of injunction, the refusal of which would cause an irreparable loss to it.
While this court does not fault the Trial Court for attempting to proceed with the trial expeditiously, but, denying to the petitioner (‘accused’) the right to cross-examine the Head Constable on an issue which is critical to his defence appears to have been a disproportionate sense of expedition.