Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Proceedings under Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, are summary in nature while an injunction suit filed by the respondent is a regular suit.”
“The confusion is exacerbated by the look and feel of the defendants’ website which has, obviously, deliberately and intentionally, been made to copy the plaintiffs’ website.”
“One cannot forget that these are ayurvedic preparations and not allopathic medicines or scheduled drugs for which, doctors’ prescriptions are required. These are over the counter preparations, which are often brought by patients without prescription.”
“In the case of pharmaceutical, cosmetics, health and related wellness products a higher standard would be required to be laid down in view of the damage that such products can cause to the consumers.”
“Where the marks in question pertain to food items, or eateries where food items are dispensed and served, a somewhat higher degree of care and caution is expected to be observed.”
“The plaintiffs have a family of marks all of which use the “TAK” suffix; therefore, the “TAK” suffix has become a source identifier of the marks of the plaintiffs and is, thus, the dominant part of the mark.”
“The mere insertion of 
figure above the word 
in the defendant’s mark does not mitigate the fact of infringement or of the defendant consciously seeking to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.”
“The plaintiff’s baby gym product is quite a distinctive product which is designed in a particular form along with depiction of characters which are known loosely as a ‘Rainforest Family’ characters.”
“Piracy of cinematograph films is one of the biggest causes for losses in the film industry. Thus, various legislative steps have been taken to curb piracy and recently, amendments have been carried out in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to deal with piracy in a much stricter manner.”
“Due to the fact that the defendant has not contested the matter, but compelled the plaintiff to file the present suit, by not agreeing to give up the infringing mark, despite being put to notice, the plaintiff is entitled to receive actual costs.”
“The matter will next be listed on 16-08-2023, to decide whether the plaintiff’s registered trade marks 
, 
and 
, are “well-known” trade marks within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”
The defendant, Dhanpreet Singh Trading was restrained from seeking any statutory rights by applying for trade marks or copyrights in respect of the red-box device mark ‘SUPREME'.
The details of the Grievance Officers in terms of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including the physical and email address shall be published openly for public access on LinkedIn’s website.
User traffic may be diverted due to the same or similar domain name, which can result in a user mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of the one intended. A domain name might, therefore, have all characteristics of a trade mark and could result in an act of passing off.
The Delhi High Court observed that ‘VOLVO' mark was blatantly infringed as branded stickers and infringing products bearing the said mark were found on the premises of the defendant.
The Delhi High Court opined that the defendants took unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Louis Vuitton (LV) marks and deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the LV marks.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to SanDisk LLC for its trade mark ‘SanDisk’ and ‘Cruzer blade’. Additionally, Rs. 5 lakhs were awarded as damages.
The Court stated that the doctrine of merger of judgement and orders in common law doctrine are founded on the principles of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system.
The Delhi High Court denied permanent injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and held that Section 9 did not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure.
The Delhi High Court held that the marks ‘WhiteHat Jr’ and ‘WhiteHat Sr’ were deceptively similar and therefore, restrained the defendants from using any trade mark, trade name and domain name which would amount to infringement of plaintiff’s mark ‘WhiteHat Jr’.