Case Briefs

Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dealing with a peculiar set of facts in a petition for protection of life and liberty, Karamjit Singh, J., dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability.

The factual matrix in the instant case is that the present petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent 2 and 3 to provide protection to their life and liberty at the hands of respondents 4 to 7. The petitioner is married to respondent 4 but they have been living separately on account of matrimonial dispute and differences. Later, petitioner 1 started living with petitioner 2, who is already married to someone else.

It is revealed that respective marriages of both the petitioners are still in force and they are in a live-in relationship with one another. Considering this, the petition cannot be maintained.

The Court relied on the judgement in Parvinder Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 1166 where this Court had directed that if the petitioners perceive any threat to their life, they may approach the police authorities who will take cognizance of their request. In a similar fashion, in the present case, if the petitioners approach the police authority concerned, protection might be provided after threat assessment, if necessary.

The Court has remarked that this order shall, in no way serve as validation and recognition of the said live-in relationship and will not entitle them to any protection against legal action. In case the petitioners have committed an offence, then they will be dealt with by following the due procedure under Indian law.

In view of the above, the petition has been disposed of.[Anita Kumari v. State of Punjab, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 1780, decided on 23-10-2020]


Yashvardhan Shrivastav, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: B.P. Colabawalla, J., granted interim relief in a matter between HUL and Emami over the use of “Glow & Handsome” and held that Emami before initiating any legal proceedings shall give 7 days prior notice to Hindustan Unilever Limited.

Present suit was filed under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking injunction against the defendant from issuing groundless threats to the plaintiff in respect of the use of its trademark “GLOW & HANDSOME”

Plaintiff’s advocate, Hiren Kamod submitted that plaintiff sought limited ad-interim relief, that defendant should give atleast 7 clear days prior written notice before initiating any legal proceedings.

Further it was stated that, after conducting a search in the Register of Trade Marks, the Plaintiff independently and honestly coined and adopted the trade marks ‘GLOW & LOVELY’ and ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’ in respect of its skin care products.

To secure statutory rights in the ‘GLOW & LOVELY’ and ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’ marks the Plaintiff filed multiclass applications.

On 2nd July, 2020,

Plaintiff made an official announcement that its trade mark / brand ‘FAIR & LOVELY’ is rebranded as ‘GLOW & LOVELY’ for its skin care range of products and the Plaintiff’s skin care range of FAIR & LOVELY products for men will be called as ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’.

It is stated that the plaintiff was granted its FDA License to manufacture its skin care products under the mark “GLOW & HANDSOME” on 3rd July 2020. Thereafter, the plaintiff immediately issued commercial advertisements in respect of its products bearing the trade mark ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’ not only on social media but also in the newspapers.

Immediately after the plaintiff made announcement on 2nd July 2020, the defendant gave statements in various newspapers inter alia threatening to adopt legal action against the Plaintiff for violating the Defendant’s alleged rights in its mark ‘EMAMI GLOW AND HANDSOME’.

Adding to the above contentions, plaintiff’s advocate submitted that defendant’s claim of proprietorship over the marks ‘GLOW AND HANDSOME’ / ‘EMAMI GLOW AND HANDSOME’ is false and misconceived.

Plaintiff is the prior adopter and user of the trade mark ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’.

Decision

Prima facie it does appear that having filed its trade mark application in September 2018 and subsequently on 25th June 2020 for the mark ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’, the plaintiff is the prior adopter of the said mark, whereas, defendant adopted the ‘GLOW AND HANDSOME’ mark for the first time on 25th June 2020 and has not commercially used it till date.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Court stated that no harm or prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the limited relief as prayed by the plaintiff is granted.

Plaintiff was granted liberty to renew its application for further reliefs on the adjourned date, after giving notice to the defendant. [Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Emami Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 764 , decided on 06-07-2020]

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Under the directions of Union Home Minister, Shri Amit Shah, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has blacklisted 960 foreigners, present in India on tourist visas, for their involvement in Tablighi Jamaat activities. ?

?MHA has also directed DGPs of all concerned States/UTs and CP, Delhi Police to take necessary legal action against all such violators, on priority, under relevant sections of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Disaster Management Act, 2005.


Ministry of Home Affairs

[Press Release dt. 02-04-2020]

[Source: PIB]

Hot Off The PressNews

States asked to strictly enforce lockdown,

Legal action against violators.


Ministry of Information & Broadcasting

[Press Release dt. 23-03-2020]

[Source: PIB]

Hot Off The PressNews

Press Council of India (PCI) Chairman Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad expressed grave concern over the order issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 30-10-2019 granting permission to the Secretaries of respective Departments to initiate legal action with regard to the publication of false, baseless and defamatory news items against the print media through the public prosecutor.

The Chairman is of the view that the threat to prosecute media personnel, in general, shall demoralise the journalists in large which shall have a severe bearing on the freedom o the press. Not only this the problems which the order in question seeks to redress can very well be remedied by The Council itself.

While taking Suo-Motu cognizance of the issue, the Chairman has directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh through its Chief Secretary and Special Commissioner (I&PR)  to file a reply statement in this matter.


[Press Release dt. 01-11-2019]

Press Council of India