Apple: A monopolist under Federal or State Law? A win for Epic or Apple? Read to know
United States District Court, North District of California: While issuing a permanent injunction, stating Apple could no longer prohibit developers linking to
permanent injunction
Explained| Is a suit for injunction maintainable where the plaintiff’s title is in dispute?
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai, JJ has, in two judgments, has held that where the plaintiff’s
Provisions of DV Act cannot be used as a ploy by son, to either claim a right in his father’s property or continue to retain possession of father’s property, on strength of his wife’s right of residence: Del HC
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J. while addressing the matter, expressed that “…in the opinion of this Court, all cases of
[Trademark Dispute] Kar HC | A case of deceptively similar trademarks; Quintessential ‘Common man’ is neither blessed with the wisdom of Solomon nor the trained eyes of Sherlock Holmes
Karnataka High Court: P. Krishna Bhat J., set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Court to hear and dispose
Del HC | What is the scope of Court’s jurisdiction while examining application under S. 8, Arbitration and Conciliation Act. What is effect of ‘Chalk & Cheese’ case of non-arbitrability? HC examines in “Hero” electric bikes dispute
Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., expressed while addressing a dispute that: “Where a valid arbitration agreement exists, the decision also
AP HC | Extensive Analysis of Trade Marks Law: Can injunction be granted in case a trade mark falls under ambit of ‘Test of likelihood of confusion or deception’? Read more on Buyer Confusion
Andhra Pradesh High Court: R. Raghunandan Rao, J., addressed a matter wherein the law relating to Trade Mark and Passing off was highlighted
High Court not obliged to frame substantial question of law if no error is found in First Appellate Court’s findings; says SC
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that the High Court is
P&H HC | A co-sharer in a property can seek a permanent injunction against other co-sharers if the value or utility of property is diminished; Court directs parties to maintain status quo
Punjab & Haryana High Court: While deciding an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional District Judge,
Delhi High Court rejects trademark injunction sought by pharmaceutical company creating Typhoid vaccines
Delhi High Court: V. Kameswar Rao J. rejected an application for permanent injunction by a pharmaceutical company against a rival brand, seeking
Bom HC | “ISKCON” declared as a well-known trade mark: Satisfies tests & requirements laid down in Trade Marks Act
Bombay High Court: B.P. Colabawalla, J., held that, “Trade Mark ISKCON has come to enjoy a personality that is beyond the mere products/services
Raj HC | Court allows impleadment of petitioner; quashes trial court order of rejection of petition
Rajasthan High Court: Arun Bhansali J., quashed and set aside the order of the trial court since the trial court erred in
Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not “evidence” within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., allowed a second appeal against the order of the trial court as well as the First
Del HC | Plea of Acquiescence rejected; Temporary injunction granted to “Make My Trip” against “Make My Travel” for trademark infringement
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J. while addressing a matter in respect to trademark infringement and in lieu of that seeking a
Del HC | Facebook, Instagram directed to pull down posts violating trademark ‘DA MILANO’ in terms of IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011
Delhi High Court: Pratibha M. Singh, J. while addressing a petition concerning the protection of the trademark ‘DA MILANO’, issued certain guidelines
MP HC | Plaint filed under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC can be rejected based on grounds mentioned in Rule 11 or if the cause of action has not been disclosed
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Prakash Shrivastava, J., dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents under Section 115 CPC where they challenged
Ori HC | Lower Court orders quashed due to production of forged evidence and fraudulent practices
Orissa High Court: Dr A.K. Rath J., quashed the order passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) and order by Tahsildar due to
J&K HC | Petition for additional pleas rejected as nothing new pleaded in written statement
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Bench of Sanjeev Kumar, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order of a Subordinate Civil
Person should have direct interest in subject matter of litigation to be added as party to suit
Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., allowed the petition which challenged the order of the trial
Causing impairment to product constitutes infringement under Sections 29 & 30 TM Act; missing price tags from ARMANI products lend credence to claim of counterfeiting: Del HC
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. decreed a suit in terms of granting a permanent
Court free to invoke provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC if defendant fails to file WS; permanent injunction granted against use of trademark CBN NEWS
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Nath, J. decreed a suit for permanent injunction by invoking the provisions