Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The plaintiffs submitted that Defendant 1 is dishonestly using an identical and deceptively similar trade mark as that of the plaintiffs’, so that any ordinary consumer would be misled to believe that Defendant 1’s products are that of the plaintiffs or associated with or emanating from the plaintiffs.
The Court stated that the defendants shall continue their business of pre-owned goods of the plaintiff. However, the defendants shall conspicuously display on their website that the goods sold by them, are certified pre-owned goods of the plaintiff.
Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for taking a registered trade mark off the Register on account of non-use of the trade mark.
“Perusal of the affidavit filed by the director of the Indian company of the defendant, categorically shows that it has been stated in categorical terms that the company has been inoperative since its incorporation rendering the same as being ‘Defunct’.
The brand ‘Peter England’ was introduced in 1997 and later acquired by Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. in 2000.
Since the rival trade marks were visually and phonetically identical, it would cause confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors, and chemists.
The rights of the impugned song ‘Udi Jab Jab Zulfein’ from the film ‘Naya Daur’ had been assigned to Saregama India Ltd. by BR Films, the original producer of the film.
The Court stated that once the resolution plan was approved by the COC, it should be binding on all the stakeholders. Thus, the successful resolution applicant starts running the business of the corporate debtor on a fresh slate.
The Delhi High Court emphasised that if the relevant documents are not provided to a party, the whole procedure of issuance of Show Cause Notice would be reduced to an empty formality.