Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Testers are being sold by the defendants, Xeryus Retail (P) Ltd. masquerading them as perfumes of the plaintiff, Coty Germany GMBH for sale, thereby, luring customers into paying money for such testers which are otherwise, not to be commercially dispensed.”
Delhi High Court observed that keeping in mind the sensitive nature of the allegations and the fact that no evidence of communal disharmony had come on record during the preliminary inquiry conducted by police, the Court advises that the orders for registration of the FIR filed by any community should be passed with more circumspection.
“The Managing Committee of the Waqf Board contended that the Mughal Mosque situated near Qutub Minar did not fall within the protected monuments as notified by the Archaeological Survey of India in a notification dated 24-1-2014.”
Delhi High Court observed that the plaintiff was a man holding the position of Major General in the Army and was a man of repute. There cannot be worse defamation and disrepute to a person of integrity and honour than a false imputation of him having demanded and then accepted bribe of Rs. 50,000.
The defendant, Dhanpreet Singh Trading was restrained from seeking any statutory rights by applying for trade marks or copyrights in respect of the red-box device mark ‘SUPREME'.
The present case is a classic example of frivolous and vexatious litigation, where this Court encounters incoherent and confusing stories in the name of facts and absurd reliefs. Filing such cases as the present one is doubtlessly not only frivolous and vexatious, but annoying and such a litigant must be subject to some kind of sanction.
Delhi High Court observed that the working of the Defendant’s ‘Present and Record’ feature when compared with the Claims would demonstrate that almost all the same steps therein are present in the Defendant’s product, thus, prima facie, establishing infringement.
Delhi High Court directed MEA to prominently post and make accessible the SOP and Guidelines on its website, if not already available, within one week from the date of the order.
“A party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration based on that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar.”
Delhi High Court observed that evidence placed on record lends credence to the fact that the applicant was not merely the paper director but was a director who was actively involved in the working of the SBFL.
The Will was executed by the testator, Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri in the presence of two attesting witnesses, thus, complying with Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925.
“For a service to be categorized as a technical service, it has to be concerned with applied science, i.e., using scientific knowledge for practical applications, or industrial science concerning, relating to, or derived from industry.”
“The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is a special Act and by virtue of Section 120 of the said Act, the same has been given an overriding effect with respect to any other law for the time being in force.”
The present case is an example where substantial liability has sought to be fastened on one of the contracting parties based on specious paper calculations. It cannot be overemphasized that arbitral tribunals must exercise due care and caution while dealing with such claims.
The concession agreement is neither a statute, nor is it a law which protects the national interests of this nation and a mere failure of the arbitral tribunal to consider an argument on the same would not render the arbitral award in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
“Private unaided schools are also amenable to Writ Jurisdiction as they carry out public function discharged by the State under Article 12 of the Constitution.“
Delhi High Court observed that when assessed, by the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant or by the maxim lex posterior derogat priori, the Patents Act must prevail over the Competition Act on the issue of exercise of rights by a patentee under the Patents Act.
“It is intriguing as to why a reputed company such as the defendant company, Wipro Enterprises would launch its product, also pertaining to female reproductive hygiene, almost 22 years later, using the identical trade mark as that of the plaintiffs, Himalaya Wellness Co.”
A challenge to an Award on the grounds of violation of “public policy” or “fundamental policy of Indian law” would be liable to be countenanced provided it is established that its enforcement would run contrary to well-established legal tenets which brook of no exception.
The Resolution dated 12-07-2023 is a reiteration of the Collegium’s proposal dated 05-7-2023 wherein they had recommended transfer of Justice Manoj Bajaj, Justice D.K. Singh and Justice Gaurang Kanth.