Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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’.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Amitabh Bachchan for protection of his publicity rights against the fake Kaun
Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and
Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement case where the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was challenged, the Single
Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
Delhi High Court: In a case where Club Factory was involved in the sale of various unauthorized/ counterfeited products, bearing
The trademark RAJNIGANDHA has been declared as a well-known mark by this Court and is entitled to a high degree of protection. The impugned mark is visually and structurally deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademark.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for injunction by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from selling, offering for sale,
While determining whether there is infringement of trademark, one is not required to see dissimilarity, but one is required to see similarity and there is similarity of all words except one word, in the present case.
The permanent injunction passed shall come into effect from 1-11-2022.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Colgate Palmolive Company (‘plaintiff’) seeking permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark COLGATE,
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi (‘plaintiff’) seeking relief of permanent injunction and
Bombay High Court: In a case filed by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited (‘plaintiff’) seeking temporary injunction as Polycab India Limited
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Vasundhara Jewelers Private Limited (‘plaintiff’), praying for an ad-interim injunction restraining the
The considerations, while deciding an application for grant of ad-interim injunction could be less stringent than the one for final relief in a suit. Interim decisions are required to be made based on probable rather than a definitive view.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Indiamart Intermesh Limited (‘plaintiff’) seeking permanent injunction against fraudulent website https://india-mart.co/ registered
The advertisements on the Facebook page and YouTube channel alone, in my prima facie opinion, cannot be sufficient to deny the plaintiff its statutory rights as a registered proprietor of the mark.
There cannot be a surgical separation of the word and it would be an overall impression of the mark that would be considered.