Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“It is a series which appears to be more in the genre of comedy, and merely describes the main character as a topper in Chartered Accountancy Examination. It is neither intended nor can be perceived to be derogatory to the profession of Chartered Accountancy.”
Since the rival trade marks were visually and phonetically identical, it would cause confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors, and chemists.
The Delhi High Court said that while trade mark registration offers statutory benefits, it does not obliterate prior common law rights established through actual use and accrued goodwill in the market.
The Court opined that had the plaintiff disclosed the facts, about the knowledge of the date of usage of the logo, then the ad interim relief without notice would not have been granted to the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the Court opined that the plaintiff had suppressed the material facts.
The Court dismissed an application for granting interim injunction as similarity of name cannot be the sole criteria, especially because it was a mythological character on which admittedly various works, movies and books are already available.
The Court was satisfied that plaintiff 1 — Domino’s IP Holder LLC had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction, as they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction was not granted.
“Defendant’s mark ‘RALLEYZ’ is constituted in such a manner so as to phonetically sit remarkably close, if not together, and squeezed with, plaintiffs’ mark ‘RALEIGH’. It is clearly in the core zone of deceptive similarity, likely to cause confusion and likely to have an association with plaintiff’s mark.”
The word ‘DISH’ is a common English word which denotes Dish Antenna and cannot be described as a prominent or an essential feature of such nature so as to allow the plaintiff a monopoly over its use. The two products at dispute were “DD Free Dish” by Prasar Bharti (Doordarshan) and “Dish TV” by Dish TV India Limited.
Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff, PPL India, established a compelling case of copyright infringement against Geetanjali Salon, the defendants, with a clear imbalance of convenience favoring the plaintiff’s protection of intellectual property, an interim injunction is granted to halt the defendants’ unauthorized use of copyrighted materials.
The MANNAT DHABA and MANNAT logo has been registered by the Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited for their Dhabas and eateries, located at Murthal on the Delhi-Chandigarh Highway.
“The terminus ad quem, by which date the plaintiff has to prove the acquisition of the requisite goodwill and reputation for a plea of passing off to succeed, is the date of commencement, by the defendant, of the rival mark.”
“Forbearance from granting such relief would enable the defendants to continue exploiting the plaintiff’s copyright, which would result in irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff.”
“The plaintiff's mark 
and the defendants' mark 
are composite trade marks, which imply that they are a combination of different elements, and their registration willd not grant an exclusive right in the word ‘d mart'.”
“Balance of convenience would, clearly not justify bringing the use, by the defendants, of the PANTOPACID mark to a complete halt, at this late stage.”
“Marks of plaintiff and defendant appear quite distinctive as except the word mark POLO there is no similarity. The defendant’s mark uses suffix ‘LIFETIME’ which is predominant whereas plaintiff’s mark uses suffix ‘Ralph Lauren’ and ‘picture of polo player’.”
Bayer healthcare LLC was selling its product of Rs. 36,995 by importing the same into India, whereas the Natco Pharma Ltd. was manufacturing the product in India and selling the same of Rs. 9,900. The injunction was refused due to the huge disparity between the prices offered by both, for a life threatening disease.
Madras High Court directed Savukku to file an affidavit of undertaking, that in future he shall guard himself against violating any orders passed by any Court, or even make any comments which may impinge the majesty of the Courts.
Considering the fact that Senthil Balaji is a public person, the YouTube videos and tweets only make various allegations against him in performance of his official duties. Further, most of the statements are already available in public domain.
Bombay High Court perused the assignment deed pertaining to the film ‘Amba’ and opined that ‘the said work’ indicates plaintiff’s failure in making out a prima facie case of only audio rights being assigned to the defendant.
The Delhi High Court observed that “Dichotomizing the claims and the accompanying specifications is, therefore, contrary to the most fundamental canons of patent law.”