Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in May 2023
The Court opined that whether a mark is common to trade or not is a question of fact. Similarly, a mark may be a trademark in some jurisdictions and ‘publici juris’ in others, but a mark that may be common to trade at one time may become distinctive over a period, or vice versa.
The founder of the defendant institutions was not only aware of ‘Mayo Clinic’ in the USA but drew inspiration from the founder of ‘Mayo Clinic’, USA. Thus, the defendants have dishonestly adopted the ‘MAYO’ mark of the plaintiff as they are fully aware of the prior existence and use of the same by the plaintiff.
The Court noted that the Trial Court made an error in allowing Blinkhit’s application for temporary injunction, without properly appreciating the available materials on record vis-à-vis the trademark’s usage and nature of the business carried out by the parties.
Sections 20-A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 expresses the legislative intent to not grant injunctions relating to infrastructure projects where delay may be caused by such an injunction. Thus, the role of Courts in this exercise is to interfere to the minimum extent so that public work projects are not impeded or stalled.
Punjab and Haryana High Court commented that the parties had the chance to appeal against the said order of lower court, yet they approached the High Court through Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Plaintiff is aggrieved by a video circulating on Facebook pages containing disparaging remarks against the product of the Plaintiff i.e., edible oil bearing the registered trademark “MAHAKOSH”.
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 in April 2023
The Delhi High Court stated that a bare glance at the goods sold by the defendants indicated that they are prima facie imitations of the plaintiff’s registered design and accordingly injuncted Samaira Jewels from the usage of such designs.
Delhi High Court observed that customers are being misled by the defendants and the entire effort is deliberate and dishonest amounting to dilution of the reputation and goodwill of the trademark/logo of the plaintiffs.
Delhi High Court observed that every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect whether he/she is a child of a celebrity or a commoner.
The Court stated that the doctrine of merger of judgement and orders in common law doctrine are founded on the principles of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system.
The Collaboration Agreement is a commercial transaction between the private parties and hence the same by its very nature is determinable, even if there is termination clause in the Collaboration Agreement
The remand in the present case could only be correlated with Rule 23-A of Order XLI CPC and for its applicability, the necessary requirements were that “the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary”, thus, the Supreme Court held that the remand in the present case was not justified.
Delhi High Court observed that no issue regarding the validity of the registrations of trademarks of the plaintiff is liable to be framed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Delhi High Court observed that the use of the word ‘ROYAL’ appears to be only in the form of depicting the quality of the rice. The use of the word ‘ZABREEN’ prominently on its packaging is sufficient to take the defendant out of the mischief of infringement and passing off.
While deliberating over the case filed by non-profit abortion funds operating in Texas, the US District Court held that Texas’ Attorney General cannot enforce Texan anti-abortion laws outside the State of Texas
Guided by the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of Division Bench of Delhi High Court restraining a commercial project spread across 115-acres.
The Delhi High Court observed that merely because there was no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, it does not mean that in-camera proceedings cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, the Court may under Section 151 of the Code pass any order for carrying out the proceedings in camera if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.