Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
‘NCT of Delhi is giving reservation to one category and denying the same to another, which is sheer discrimination and cannot be permitted.’
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
No plausible explanation was provided by the defendants as to why the trade mark ‘AMUL’ was adopted. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. The conduct of the defendants highlighted their mala fide and dishonesty in adopting the same mark, as that of the plaintiffs’.
The trade mark ‘MONSTER’ had been adopted by Monster Energy Co. in 2002 in the United States of America.
Although the offence of ‘aggravated sexual assault’ was not mentioned in the compensation scheme, the Court referred to the offence of ‘unnatural sexual assault’ to determine the quantum of compensation.
A mother is sought to be prosecuted for delay in reporting of sexual offences on a child by her own husband, despite the fact that the mother herself was allegedly subject to severe abuse, sexual and otherwise, in her matrimonial home.
It is not necessary for a registered owner of a trademark to proceed against all entities using similar marks in order to proceed against any one of them. There may be a myriad reasons why a proprietor of a registered trademark may refrain from proceeding against entities that it considers are using infringing marks.
‘The right to a fair hearing encompasses not only the opportunity to be heard but also the right to know the reasons for any adverse decision.’
The Court hoped that the Union would look into suitably amending the nomenclature of posts that are open to both males and females to make them gender-neutral.
The plaintiffs submitted that Defendant 1 is dishonestly using an identical and deceptively similar trade mark as that of the plaintiffs’, so that any ordinary consumer would be misled to believe that Defendant 1’s products are that of the plaintiffs or associated with or emanating from the plaintiffs.
‘As per initial statements of police witnesses, no specific act of incitement had been pointed out regarding Md. Haneef, which led to the registration of the original FIR.’
Take a quick glance at what the High Courts were discussing in this late Monsoon season
Allegedly, the coaching-institute was illegally running a library in the basement where the three students got stuck in a flood and died.
‘As much as the Court may wish to intervene on behalf of a deserving candidate, it cannot overstep its jurisdiction by altering the established norms and benchmarks.’
‘The allocation of the family resource cake should align with the financial needs of each family member’
With respect to the offence under Section 304, the duration of imprisonment can only be ascertained at the conclusion of trial, and the period of investigation for that offence shall only be 60 days and not 90 days, unless the facts of a case undisputedly indicate an intention of the accused to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death.
The Court stated that mere fact that at present hospitalisation was not required and the applicant can be treated on outpatient basis did not disentitle the applicant from grant of medical bail.
‘Although Genpact had alluded to the amended statutory regime that had come into existence and had informed the AO of the obligation to follow the procedure under Section 148A, no legal challenge was instituted to impugn the action commenced by notice dated 30-06-2021.’
Shashi Tharoor while addressing the audience at the Bangalore Literature Festival in 2018 had quoted lines from the article published by the Caravan magazine and which said that “Mr. Modi is like a scorpion sitting on a Shivling; you cannot remove him with your hand, and you cannot hit it with a chappal either.”
“An average consumer with an imperfect recollection is likely to be deceived into thinking that the plaintiff has opened a new ‘SOCIAL’ outlet in Vadodara, Gujarat where the defendant is operating its outlet.”