HIGH COURT APRIL 2023 ROUNDUP| 100+ Stories on Aarey Car Shed Project; Kanpur Bar Association Strike; Bhushan Steel scam; Rahul Gandhi’s Defamation Case; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in April 2023
injunction
Delhi High Court restrains Samaira Jewels from counterfeiting BVLGARI jewelry collection
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 restrains Advance Technologies from using logo similar to The Boeing Company; Directs costs upto 5 lakhs
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 restrains Bollywood Time and other YouTube channels from reporting fake news regarding Aaradhya Bachchan’s health
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.
Delhi’s Patiala House Court declines injunction on publication of Harper Collins’ book on Asaram Bapu
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.
Delhi High Court denies relief for specific performance of collaboration agreement in view of the bar under Section 14 (d) Specific Relief Act, 1963
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
Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts’ limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial
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 holds plea regarding ‘invalidity of registrations’ granted in favour of the trademark BURGER KING as untenable
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 discusses on the distinction between ‘descriptive’ and ‘suggestive’ trademarks in the context of the mark ROYAL and its use in relation to rice
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.
US District Court | Texas’ anti-abortion laws do not have extra-territorial operation and cannot regulate abortions that take place outside the State of Texas
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
‘Blanket order directing status quo stalling entire 115-acre project not justified’: Supreme Court
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.
In Camera proceedings can be held under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case: Delhi High Court
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.
Delhi High Court restrains Parle company from using FAB!O being deceptively similar to Cadbury’s OREO
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.
[Trademark v. Domain Name] Bombay HC holds trademark infringement suit is an action in personam; Court cannot impose a blanket ban on “Swiggy” mark in future
“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.”
“Schezwan Chutney” is a mere descriptive term; Delhi High Court rejects plea of Capital Food (P) Ltd. of restraining Radiant Indus Chem (P) Ltd. from using the word “Schezwan Chutney”
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”.
“SUBWAY” and “SUBERB” not phonetically and deceptively similar; Delhi High Court dismisses Subway’s plea for injunction for its mark “SUBWAY” against Infinity Food’s mark “SUBERB”
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”.
[Uphar Cinema Fire Case] A fictional rendition of trials and tribulations cannot be presumed to be defamatory; Delhi High Court denies restrain order against web series ‘Trial by Fire’
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.
Delhi High Court confirms ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of AIWA Co. Ltd., a Japan company for its mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit
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 restrains internet providers from broadcasting IPL auctions and events; Grants interim relief to Viacom 18
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.
Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ in a trademark infringement suit
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.