Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The concept of personality right has gained momentum by reason of unauthorised exploitation on digital platforms and social media for commercial gain, which often results in tarnishing or damaging the personality rights of an individual and more often of a renowned and well-known personality.”
“A prior purchaser not impleaded in a suit for specific performance cannot seek cancellation of the decree but is entitled to a declaration that such decree is not binding on him, along with the consequential relief of injunction.”
“Where explanation for adoption of the mark is not honest and there are two different versions with different reasons and which reasons themselves are not proved, such explanation should be disregarded on the principle that things speaks for themselves.”
“The plaintiffs are the prior adopters and long-standing users of the subject mark ‘HIMALAYA’ since 1930 in connection with ayurvedic, wellness, pharmaceutical and personal care products.”
“Substituting ‘K’ with ‘M’ to form ‘GOLD FLAME’ from ‘GOLD FLAKE’ does not make the competing Marks dissimilar. A consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection or not well-versed in English would be unable to distinguish between the competing products.”
by Sugandh Kochhar* and Sohini Mukerjee**
“The disputes between the neighbours relating to the easementary rights are clearly mentioned as being suitable for mediation.”
“Once copyright infringement is the core relief, incidental or ancillary reliefs, whether based on confidentiality, trade secrets, or passing off, do not affect maintainability of the suit as a whole.”
The Court noted that the subject property deserves preservation till the appeal is decided.
“Where two persons may be registered proprietors of marks, which are identical or deceptively similar to each other, neither person would be allowed to interfere with the exclusive right of the other person to use the mark, though each of them would have a right of injunction against a third party, who may not be a registered proprietor of the mark.”
Umang Taneja had posted videos on YouTube and Instagram disparaging Trishla Chaturvedi by accusing her of practicing black magic and being a drug abuser.
The Trial Court cannot order police protection mechanically. Unless the trial Court satisfies itself that there is an imminent need for police aid/police help, it cannot order for police protection on mere request.
“The combination of the two words “RAM” and “BANDHU” is a coined word and arbitrary adaption being totally unconnected with the goods marketed under the trade mark, gives rise to claim for exclusivity.”
It is permissible for an advertiser to undertake an advertising campaign to promote its own product so long as the same is not deliberately tarnishing or defaming the competitor’s product.
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.
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 plaintiff uses the mark ‘JANGEER’, whereas the mark of the defendant includes an ‘I’ in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e., ‘JANGID’. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely different. The added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct from the plaintiff’s mark.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.