Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The dispute concerning Amazon’s use of its USA based website relates entirely to events that occurred before the UK left the European Union (Brexit) when UK trademark law at that time was substantially governed by EU legislation and case law.
The ruling sets a precedent for protecting established brands and upholding the integrity of trademark registration processes. The cancellation of the infringing trademark serves as a deterrent to potential trademark violators, emphasizing the importance of respecting intellectual property rights in commercial activities.
Dhruv Rathee uploaded a video on his YouTube channel claiming that the consumption of packaged fruit juices leads to type II diabetes and that drinking packaged fruit juices leads to hair loss and is harmful if consumed.
Calcutta High Court emphasised the need for caution in granting relief at the interlocutory stage, particularly when it resembles final relief.
The MANNAT DHABA and MANNAT logo has been registered by the Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited for their Dhabas and eateries, located at Murthal on the Delhi-Chandigarh Highway.
There is nothing inherently illegal in IIL providing a drop down menu from which prospective sellers, on the Indiamart platform, can select the brand which they intend to sell. If, however, there are not, in place, sufficient checks and balances to prevent counterfeiters from misrepresenting themselves as genuine sellers, the protocol cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
The Plaintiff is a company engaged in manufacturing marketing and selling a wide variety of home appliances, such as ceiling fans, pedestal fans, wall fans, exhaust fans, mixer grinders, smart door locks, and accessories thereof, such as fan remote, fan motor, fan canopy, fan blades, etc. under the trade mark/trade name ATOMBERG since 2012.
The grievance of RSPL Limited is the use of the mark EXPERT and depiction of the partial clock on the detergent packaging of the defendants as also the use of the word expert and use of the elongated X and DX.
Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital & Heart Institute happens to be one of the leading hospitals in Ghaziabad.
The contemnors apologised and stated that the entire incident is quite unfortunate and though facts have been misrepresented before the instant Court, however, they do not intend to disobey the orders of the Court and that the respondents have great respect for the Court.
The suit was filed against the marks FERTISUN used per se as well as with the suffixes F and L as FERTISUN-F and FERTISUN-L and the corporate name of the defendant ‘LaurenSun Remedies Pvt Ltd’.
Clause 2.6 of the MOU signed between the parties clearly stipulates that upon termination/determination of this agreement the developer/respondent shall have no right to use any brand/mark associated with the consultants/petitioners, and/or any brand/mark identical or deceptively similar thereto, in relation to Project, expansion or part thereof.
The grievance of Patanjali Ayurved is that a video has been uploaded by respondent on the internet platforms owned by Meta Inc. having an advertisement of mens undergarments, wherein Patanjali’s trademark along with pictures of its brand ambassadors and directors are shown used unauthorizedly.
“The dissolution of partnership is one aspect and its effect on carrying on business by making different arrangements to defeat rights of a registered trade mark owner, is altogether a different thing”
Madras High Court said that the apprehension of Sangeetha Hotels that the public would be misled into believing that the respondent is nothing but old wine in a new bottle stands prima facie proved.
“The Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against an interim order ought not to disturb the prima facie findings, but it can substitute its own discretion when it is found that the Trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction in ignorance of settled principles of law.”
“District Court, Karnal where the first petition was filed pertaining to the Agreement in question alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the Licence Agreement. No other Court can entertain any subsequent application.
Madras High Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to re-consider and decide the matter on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to both the parties
“Balance of convenience would, clearly not justify bringing the use, by the defendants, of the PANTOPACID mark to a complete halt, at this late stage.”
Delhi High Court grants injunction against Cipla Healthcare from using the marks Gluco-C or Gluco-D either by themselves or as part of the marks Prolyte Gluco-C ++ or Prolyte Gluco-D ++ being deceptively similar to the plaintiff registered marks GLUCON-C or GLUCON-D respectively.