Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.”
by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray†
The Delhi High Court had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against defendants in a suit after the Registrar (Vigilance)’s inquiry revealed that the defendants placed a fabricated Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s Order on record.
Madras High Court: In an application filed by Viacom 18 praying for restraining several cable and internet service providers involved
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by CROSSFIT gym (‘Plaintiff’) having CROSSFIT trademarks seeking permanent injunction against defendant gym using the
Madras High Court: Krishnan Ramasamy, J. has granted interim injunction against YouTuber Savukku Sankar, restraining him from making defamatory remarks
Delhi High Court: Flipkart (‘defendant’) was sued by V Traditions (‘plaintiff’) for infringing its mark by allowing third party sellers to latch