Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
For exclusion of provisionally enrolled Advocates from Bar Council Electoral Roll, remedy lies before Bar Council Election Committee, not writ court
“In my prima facie view, it would only be reasonable to give an opportunity to the defendants to present their defence in respect of their publications/posts/articles.”
“There is huge amount of betting on each of the horse races and therefore, a monopoly of any race by any owner/ ‘family unit’ would have the potential of rigging of horse races.”
“At best, the letter consenting to appointment of sole arbitrator, was a conditional acceptance of the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The condition being that the sole arbitrator would adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and both the respondents.”
“The use of trade name ‘ALCHEM’ on the defendant’s packaging material in addition to the generic names is likely to cause confusion in the mind of customers of average intelligence.”
“Nothing has been placed on record by Dreamfolks to show that the said entities/ banks are its exclusive clients and that they have not entered similar agreements with other service providers like Dreamfolks.”
Umang Taneja had posted videos on YouTube and Instagram disparaging Trishla Chaturvedi by accusing her of practicing black magic and being a drug abuser.
The Defendant was discharged from service during the probation period itself and upon discharge he published statements and videos disparaging ICICI Bank.
The intent behind Section 104A of the Act is to shift the onus of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant in cases involving infringement of process patents. This is premised on the fact that the process adopted by a defendant in manufacturing its product would only be known to the defendant and would be difficult for the plaintiff to determine.
The portal is meant to provide a dedicated platform for filing and addressing complaints of sexual harassment of women within the precincts of the Delhi High Court in a safe, secure, and confidential manner.
The plaintiffs submitted that the defendants, by manufacturing, using, displaying, advertising lookalike of the plaintiffs’ well-known products, are trying to create an unauthorized association with the plaintiffs, and deceive customers to believe that the plaintiffs have launched an affordable new range of products.
“The registration of the impugned domain names by Defendant 1 would be prejudicial to public interest as the Defendant 1 is seeking to monopolize the mark, which was announced by the Insurance Regulator IRDAI for a specific purpose in public interest.”
The plaintiffs submitted that the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks are widely recognized and known among Indian consumers, especially in the hospitality and travel industry. The plaintiffs have promoted their respective trade marks heavily and have been recognized and given multiple awards and accolades.
The plaintiff contended that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff’s rights in the ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ film by displaying/communicating to the public/hosting/utilizing content, creating merchandise, and online content related to the said film, which exclusively belonged to the plaintiff.
The unauthorized actions of Defendant 1, including the creation and operation of fraudulent WhatsApp/Telegram groups, websites and mobile apps, have given rise to substantial confusion, leading individuals to falsely believe that the impugned groups and website are affiliated with plaintiff.
The long duration and wide geographical area for which the TAJ marks have been in use, their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiff, in India and other countries, the TAJ marks have achieved the status of well-known trade marks.
Defendant 3 has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trade marks/artistic works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks/labels without any plausible explanation.
The petitioner has filed an affidavit of the authorized representative of an independent investigating agency to support its averments regarding non-use of the impugned mark by Respondent 1 in relation to the services in class 35 for nearly 8 years up to the date of filing of the present petition.
The act of the defendants of playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the plaintiff holds the copyright would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in terms of Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The plaintiff averred that given the widespread sale, promotional and advertising activities undertaken by the plaintiff, the registered trade marks has become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services.