Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
A consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection who has earlier purchased and had the OREO cookie would, when he sees the FAB!O cookie pack, be clearly likely to associate the FAB!O cookie with the OREO cookie that he had earlier enjoyed (ass uming he did). That, by itself, satisfies the test of —initial interest confusion.
“The Court held that in every case of trademark infringement, the plaintiff claiming infringement of its registered mark is required to claim relief in the context of specific instances of infringement, relatable to individuals against whom orders can be passed by the Court.”
The Delhi High Court held that “SCHEZWAN CHUTENY” was a mere descriptive term and therefore, Radiant Indus Chem (P) Ltd. could not be stopped from using the same and the Court further held that if protection was granted to the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, then similar protection should also be granted to ‘Tamarind Chutney' or ‘Tomato Chutney', as they were also combinations of words in “English and Hindi”.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Subway's plea for injunction for its mark “SUBWAY” against Infinity Food's mark “SUBERB” in a trade mark infringement case and held that the appearance of Infinity Food's red and white “SUBERB” mark could not be said to be deceptively similar to Subway's device mark, “SUBWAY”.
If the court were to find that the material which is likely to be broadcast or published already exists in the public domain and has existed as such for a considerable period without an objection having been raised, that too would detract from the right of the plaintiff to seek ad interim injunctive relief.
The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.
Madras High Court granted interim relief to Viacom 18, as it has made out a prima facie case on merits and the balance of convenience was also in its favour.
The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ and restrained Kian Agro Processing (P) Ltd. from affixing the mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered marks for the purposes of selling or marketing rice in India or for export to any entity, till the pendency of the suit.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark ‘RPG’. Further, RPG Developers (P) Ltd. were restrained from offering/rendering any services using the impugned trade mark ‘RPG’ and/or ‘RPG DEVELOPERS’ and/or artistic work which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiff’s artistic work or any other trade mark/artistic work deceptively similar to the ‘RPG’ marks of the plaintiff. Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs were awarded as damages to the plaintiff.
Fraud, as an exception to the rule of non-interference with encashment of bank guarantees, is not any fraud, but a fraud of an egregious nature, going to the root i.e., to the foundation of the bank guarantee and an established fraud. The entire case of the respondent fails to qualify for this.
The three tests of sound, sight and meaning are now well accepted for determining the similarity between competing marks and, similarity in any of the three aspects – visual impression, verbal sound, and meaning – may be sufficient to result in confusion. The question of similarity and the likelihood of confusion between two competing marks is determined on the basis of their overall commercial impression.
In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks ‘Su-Kam’, ‘BIG conqueror Tubular Battery’ and ‘BIG Warrior Tubular Battery’.