{"id":250597,"date":"2021-07-01T16:00:53","date_gmt":"2021-07-01T10:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=250597"},"modified":"2021-07-02T10:10:16","modified_gmt":"2021-07-02T04:40:16","slug":"trademark-disputes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>Jayant Nath, J., observed that the assignment of the trademark is by a contract and not by a statutory act. It does not involve any exercise of sovereign functions of the State.<\/p>\n

Defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.<\/p>\n

Master Long Term Supply Agreement<\/em><\/span>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Plaintiff submitted that the parties had entered into Master Long Term Supply Agreement by which the defendant on an exclusive basis had supplied to the plaintiff exclusive brands of the defendant \u201cGolden’s Gold Flake, Golden Classic, Taj Chhap, Panama and Chancellor\u201d.<\/p>\n

The above-stated brands were being sold, supplied and distributed exclusively in the domestic and international market.<\/p>\n

Trademark Agreement and Amendment Agreement<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Later, plaintiff entered into a trademark agreement and amendment agreement and was granted exclusive non-assignable, non-transferable license to manufacture the defendant\u2019s product to be manufactured exclusively at the plaintiff\u2019s factory at Noida and were to be marketed and distributed.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff submitted that despite huge capital and operational expenditure made by the plaintiff to increase the availability of defendant\u2019s product, the defendant arbitrarily cancelled the trademark license agreement.<\/p>\n

A termination notice by the defendant was issued. Since the commercial production had not started the agreement was terminated with immediate effect.<\/p>\n

By another termination notice, the defendant company stated that timely payment was not made in terms of the agreement and hence plaintiff was to have no right to manufacture and sell the exclusive brands of the defendant in the market from that point onwards.<\/p>\n

In view of the above-stated circumstances, the present suit was filed.<\/p>\n

It was prayed that the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant raised be referred to a sole Arbitrator.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

Bench firstly noted the legal position by referring to Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, further Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, <\/em>(2021) 2 SCC 1<\/a>, was referred.<\/p>\n

As per the above decision, actions in rem <\/em>including grant and issue of patents and registration of trademarks are exclusive matters falling within the sovereign and government functions and have erga omnes effect. <\/em>Such grants confer monopolistic rights, and they are non-arbitrable.<\/p>\n

Further, reference to the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court was made in Hero Electric Vehicles (P) Ltd. v. Lectro E-Mobility (P) Ltd., <\/em>2021 SCC OnLine Del 1058<\/a> as it applies on all fours to the facts of the present matter.<\/p>\n

Court held that the dispute did not pertain to infringement of a trademark on the ground that the defendants are using a deceptively similar trademark. The ground was that the right to use the trademark was conferred by a particular agreement on a particular group of the family. Even if the plaintiff in that case were to rely on any provisions of the Trademark Act the essential infraction as allegedly committed by the defendant was not the provisions of the Trademark Act but the provisions of the agreements in question. The dispute which emanates out of the agreement between the parties was held to be arbitrable. The court also clarified that the controversy in the said case did not relate to grant or registration of trademarks. The said trademarks stood granted and registered. It was also held that assignment of a trademark is by a contract and is not a statutory fiat. It does not involve any exercise of sovereign functions.<\/em><\/p>\n

Primarily the crux of the issue was that the dispute was relating to interpretation of the terms of the Trademark Agreement and amendment agreement executed between parties and whether the termination of the said agreements by the defendant and cancellation of the assignment of the trademark in favour of the plaintiffs was legal and valid.<\/p>\n

\u201cright that is asserted by the plaintiff is not a right that emanates from the Trademark Act but a right that emanates from the Trademark Agreement and the amendment agreement.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the present matter, Bench held that it cannot be said that the disputes are not arbitrable.<\/p>\n

In view of the above discussion, the application was allowed. [Golden Tobie (P) Ltd. v. Golden Tobacco Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3029<\/b><\/a>, decided on 4-06-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the plaintiff: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Priyadarshi Manish and Ms. Anjali J. Manish, Advs.<\/p>\n

For the Defendant: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Mr. Vijay Kumar Wadhwa and Mr. Maninder Pratap Singh, Advocates.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., observed that the assignment of the trademark is by a contract and not by a statutory <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1192,3,10],"tags":[10111,17711,3174,29785,42834,46404],"class_list":["post-250597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alternate_dispute_resolution","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-agreement","tag-arbitrator","tag-contract","tag-law","tag-legal-news","tag-trademark-agreement"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Trademark Disputes\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Trademark Disputes\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-07-01T10:30:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-07-02T04:40:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/01\\\/trademark-disputes\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/01\\\/trademark-disputes\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-01T10:30:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-07-02T04:40:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/01\\\/trademark-disputes\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":746,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"arbitration agreement\",\"Arbitrator\",\"contract\",\"law\",\"Legal News\",\"Trademark Agreement\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Alternate Dispute Resolution\",\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/01\\\/trademark-disputes\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/01\\\/trademark-disputes\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/01\\\/trademark-disputes\\\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-01T10:30:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-07-02T04:40:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Trademark Disputes\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/01\\\/trademark-disputes\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/01\\\/trademark-disputes\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/01\\\/trademark-disputes\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement | SCC Times","description":"Trademark Disputes","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement","og_description":"Trademark Disputes","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-07-01T10:30:53+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-07-02T04:40:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement","datePublished":"2021-07-01T10:30:53+00:00","dateModified":"2021-07-02T04:40:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/"},"wordCount":746,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["arbitration agreement","Arbitrator","contract","law","Legal News","Trademark Agreement"],"articleSection":["Alternate Dispute Resolution","Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/","name":"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-07-01T10:30:53+00:00","dateModified":"2021-07-02T04:40:16+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Trademark Disputes","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/trademark-disputes\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Are trademark disputes arbitrable? Court interprets S. 8 of Arbitration Act; differentiates between rights emanating from Trademark Act and Trademark Agreement"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":202017,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/20\/permanent-injunction-granted-for-infringement-of-trademark-on-satisfaction-of-triple-identity-test\/","url_meta":{"origin":250597,"position":0},"title":"Permanent injunction granted for infringement of trademark on satisfaction of \u2018triple identity test\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manmohan, J. decreed a suit for grant of a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of plaintiff \u2019s trademarks. It was an admitted fact that the plaintiff was a registered owner of the trademarks SUMEET and SUMEET TRADITIONAL for their\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":243068,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/30\/del-hc-when-does-novation-under-the-contract-act-takes-place-read-while-hc-examines-the-scope-of-s-8-of-arbitration-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":250597,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | When does \u2018Novation\u2019 under the Contract Act takes place? Read while HC examines the scope of S. 8 of Arbitration Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., while addressing the matter stressed upon the essentiality of Novation and Arbitration Agreement. Factual Matrix The present application was filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint and referring\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":44551,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/21\/all-civil-disputes-are-by-definition-arbitrable-except-those-that-are-specifically-excluded\/","url_meta":{"origin":250597,"position":2},"title":"All civil disputes are, by definition, arbitrable except those that are specifically excluded","author":"Sucheta","date":"April 21, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: The present Notice of Motion is the Defendant No. 1\u2019s Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in which the prayer was made in order to refer to Arbitration for resolving all disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant in terms of the Arbitration Agreement\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Alternate Dispute Resolution"","block_context":{"text":"Alternate Dispute Resolution","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/alternate_dispute_resolution\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256861,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/09\/trademark-infringement-suit-filed-by-bennett-coleman-disposed-of-by-tis-hazari-courts-after-defendants-pay-damages-of-re-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":250597,"position":3},"title":"Trademark Infringement suit filed by Bennett Coleman partly disposed of by Tis Hazari Courts after defendants pay damages of Re 1, reach settlement","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Tis Hazari Court: Man Mohan Sharma, District Judge, partly disposed of a trademark infringement suit filed by Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., noting that the plaintiffs and the defendants reached a settlement agreement. Factual Background Plaintiff was aggrieved by the actions of the Defendants who committed the trademark infringement and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tis-hazari","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Tis-hazari.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":372171,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/bhc-bars-salon-use-jawed-habib-trademarks-after-franchise-expiry\/","url_meta":{"origin":250597,"position":4},"title":"Bombay High Court bars salon’s continued use of ‘Jawed Habib’ trademarks and copyrights following expiry of franchise agreement; Issues ad-interim injunction","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"January 9, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe franchise agreement prima facie indicated acceptance of ownership of the plaintiff in the registered trademarks and permitted use only during subsistence of the agreement.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jawed Habib trademarks","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Jawed-Habib-trademarks.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Jawed-Habib-trademarks.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Jawed-Habib-trademarks.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Jawed-Habib-trademarks.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":244925,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/03\/arbitration\/","url_meta":{"origin":250597,"position":5},"title":"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","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., expressed while addressing a dispute that: \u201cWhere a valid arbitration agreement exists, the decision also underscores the position that, ordinarily, the disputes between the parties ought to be referred to arbitration, and it is only where a clear \u201cchalk and cheese\u201d case of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250597","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250597"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250597\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}