“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
Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna, J. granted ad interim injunction against Pawan Khera and others (‘defendants’) who allegedly organized a Press Conference
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of interference in matters relating to Government contracts and tenders, the bench of Hemant Gupta* and V.
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., granted an interim injunction in favour of Tata Sons (P) Ltd. in a case where the
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., granted ad-interim injunction and directed the meaww.com to take down defamatory and malicious articles against Daniel Snyder.
As reported by ANI, Kerala High Court refuses to grant interim injunction on the State Government Ordinance with regard to deferment of
Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench of I.P. Mukerji and Md. Nizamuddin, JJ., allowed an appeal filed against the order of the Single