Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
The Court observed that many accounts on YouTube channels and Meta’s social media platforms are using modern day technology to modify the voice, image, likeness etc. of Sadhguru to garner more views and subscribers to piggyback on his name and reputation.
“Every false complaint of sexual offences not just causes immense damage to the person accused of the offence, but also creates cynicism and distrust across the society, which leads to even the genuine victims of sexual offences suffer, as society starts suspecting her truthful complaint also to be false.”
“The fact that the customer may on a closer examination of products and enquiries find that the impugned trade marks are not associated with the appellant’s trade marks would not take away from the fact that the impugned marks bear a similarity with the appellants trade mark, which led to the confusion.”
“As per the instructions in the advertisement, the respondent was duty bound to inform the petitioner about her being provisionally selected through an e-mail, which in the present case was received after the specified time period.”
“When the dignity of any judicial officer is torn by way of use of filthy words proved beyond reasonable doubt, the law must act as the thread that would mend and restore it.”
The petitioner submitted that since Resolution Plan under the Reserve Bank of India’s Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets, 2019 have already been implemented, therefore, the Bank of India ought not to have proceeded against the petitioner.
The present petition is filed by petitioner, who provides services for packing of two-wheelers, parcels, and passenger luggage with optional door pickup and delivery at Visakhapatnam Railway Station, seeking extension of his license period for seven months.
“Section 330(3) of CrPC mandates the Court to carefully consider the nature of the act committed, assess the degree of the mental condition, seek medical opinion, and then, only upon being satisfied, release the accused with adequate safeguards or refer him to a designated facility equipped to provide necessary care and rehabilitation.”
“When individuals, driven by financial inducement or otherwise, seek to breach this trust by serving as conduits to foreign agencies, amounts to an act not only of grave criminality but of betrayal to the nation.”
“While Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent statutory conditions for the grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC, these provisions cannot be construed in a manner that forecloses judicial scrutiny under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Court stated that the charge under Section 377 of IPC could not have been framed against the husband. A ‘consensual’ oral or anal intercourse between any two adults, in private, is not a criminal offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC.
“Mere use of a mark, even if continued over a period, is not by itself sufficient to establish enforceable rights under trade mark law. It must be shown that the mark, through its use in trade, has acquired a distinct association in the minds of the relevant consumer base with the claimant’s goods.”
“From the harmonious reading of the provisions of PC & PNDT Act, which make the offences as cognizable and non-bailable along with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it cannot be said that no FIR can be registered or that the registration of FIR is barred under PC & PNDT Act.”
The plaintiff contended that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff’s rights in the ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ film by displaying/communicating to the public/hosting/utilizing content, creating merchandise, and online content related to the said film, which exclusively belonged to the plaintiff.
The case began with a search and seizure by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 37 of FEMA at the petitioners’ premises and during the operation, the petitioners allegedly confessed to illegal hawala transactions worth ₹3,500 crore routed abroad using fabricated documents to remit money to their companies in Hong Kong and Canada.
“Quite often, it is seen that road rage leads to loss of human lives as well. The damage caused gets aggrandized when one of the aggressors is a lawyer while the other is a President of a political organization.”
The accused has spent more than six years in custody, despite which, the matter is still at the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses and only 11 out of 100 witnesses are examined till now.
“The provisions of CPC are only applicable to the extent of ‘enforcement’ of an award which are reflected in Order 21 of CPC. The legislature did not intend to permit a challenge an award during enforcement proceedings again on merits as it would be contrary to the objectives of the A&C Act which aims to ensure finality and limited judicial interference.”