Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Petitioner averred that on account of COVID-19 pandemic, he was unable to operate his SMU and therefore, in light of a policy decision taken by the respondents to give extension, treating the pandemic period as dies non, benefit of extension was granted to the petitioner up to 16-03-2025.
The long duration and wide geographical area for which the TAJ marks have been in use, their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiff, in India and other countries, the TAJ marks have achieved the status of well-known trade marks.
The cause of action to file the present petition arose when respondent 1 failed to pay the balance amount to the petitioner by 31-12-2012 as per clause (vi) of the compromise agreement based on which the consent decree dated 01-06-2009 was passed.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot exercise the administrative power of transfer of case from one Court to another within its jurisdiction, unless an order is passed by the High Court under Section 10(2) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
“It is a matter of record that the female athletes have brought significant sporting glory to the country and this Court cannot countenance a situation where equilibrium is not maintained between the male and female contingents in sporting events.”
There can be no doubt unnecessary aggression and raising of voice in Court which demonstrates disrespect cannot be tolerated. Lawyers are ought to maintain decorum in the court room.
The grievance of the petitioner Bank is that notwithstanding the favourable order dated 29-06-2022, the adverse remarks recorded in the order dated 04-06-2022 continue to cause irreparable harm to the petitioner Bank’s reputation and interests.
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.
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.