The Rare Case of Special Equities in Arbitration
by Sugandh Kochhar* and Sohini Mukerjee**
injunction
Once dispute is referred to mediation and settlement is reached, Trial Court cannot refuse decree: Orissa High Court
“The disputes between the neighbours relating to the easementary rights are clearly mentioned as being suitable for mediation.”
Allahabad HC: No relief to Jamp India, VS International over copyright infringement of Jubilant Generic’s Product Dossiers
“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.”
Delhi High Court restrains creation of third-party rights in property dispute; holds that subject property must be preserved pending adjudication
The Court noted that the subject property deserves preservation till the appeal is decided.
Can infringement action be filed against a registered trade mark? Delhi HC answers
“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.”
Delhi High Court restrains astrologer Umang Taneja from posting videos defaming Trishla Chaturvedi
Umang Taneja had posted videos on YouTube and Instagram disparaging Trishla Chaturvedi by accusing her of practicing black magic and being a drug abuser.
Karnataka High Court lays down factors to be considered by Trial Courts before granting police protection
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.
Bombay HC grants interim relief to Empire Spices and Foods Ltd. for mark “RAM BANDHU” against mark “SHREE RAM BANDHU”
“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.”
Delhi High Court directs Ghadi detergent to remove derogatory phrases targeting Surf Excel from its advertisements
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.
Delhi HC grants interim protection to Sadhguru’s personality rights; restrains misuse of his rights through AI
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.
Delhi HC grants ad interim injunction to Vinay Pictures; restrains unauthorized use of ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ film’s intellectual property
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.
‘No deceptive similarity to each other’; Delhi High Court upholds bona fide use of surname ‘JANGID’ as trademark
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.
HIGH COURT FEBRUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Marital Rape; Peter England’s Trade mark; Maggie; MP Abdul Rashid’s parole; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
HIGH COURT FEBRUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Delhi Riots; Bar Association Elections; Fake Anti-Cancer Drug; NOVARTIS Trade Mark; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Khadi’s Device Mark; Police Protection for Live-In Couples; Wonderchef’s Reputation; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
Rohini Court injuncts counterfeiter from infringing Ghadi’s packaging and tagline ‘Pahle Istemal Karen Fir Viswash Karen’
The Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending their claim for tagline “Hamesha Istemaal Kare or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye”; and there was no other compelling reason as to why the Ghadi’s claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence vide a summary judgment.
‘Distributor contractually obliged to maintain favourable reflection & protect goodwill’; Bombay HC injuncts distributor from damaging Wonderchef’s reputation
The Court granted injunction in favour of Wonderchef while bearing in mind that free speech cannot be lightly proscribed, and commercial speech formed a part of it.
BHARAT GATE mark is deceptively similar to INDIA GATE; Delhi High Court restores injunction
The marks INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE convey the same meaning and the difference in trade dress between the marks as visually depicted on the packages of the appellant’s and respondent’s products would not mitigate the confusion created by the infringement.
HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania’s Bail; Rupali Ganguli’s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
Delhi High Court upholds injunction granted in favour of FMI Limited in ‘INDI’ vs ‘INDEED’ Trademark Dispute
The lack of bona fide on the part of the defendant is also demonstrated from the fact that it has adopted an identical colour combination of ‘blue and white’, as used by the plaintiff. Pertinently, most of the measuring tapes of the defendant selling under different marks do not bear the ‘blue and white’ colour combination.