Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that no violation of bodily autonomy was found where medical care was limited to consented oral treatment despite the patient’s critical health condition marked by dangerously low sugar, sodium and potassium levels.
Delhi High Court dismissed challenges to the Indian Dressage Team selection for the 2026 Asian Games, holding that the EFI followed the prescribed Selection Criteria and reiterating the limited scope of judicial review in sports selections.
Armed Forces Tribunal refused to grant interim relief permitting the petitioners, SSC Medical Officers, to apply for and appear in the NEET PG Examination, 2026 on a priority basis.
Delhi High Court held in view of the subsequent enactment of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the issue raised with regard to non-compliance of the Sports Code, 2011 has become academic and ordered fresh elections and appointed Administrator.
The Court granted interim protection to IRCTC, holding that tariff-linked revision of licence fee raises a prima facie case and warrants a stay on the arbitral findings impacting IRCTC’s policy framework.
“A party cannot be permitted to ‘blow hot-blow cold’, ‘fast and loose’ or ‘approbate and reprobate’. Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself.”
“Filing of an application for rejection of plaint by Defendant 2 after lapse of statutory period for filing written statement, will not entitle Defendant 2 for grant of any extension of time for filing written statement on that ground.”
“There are multiple complaints of over-charging, service quality, hygiene, food quality, etc. against the appellant, which presents a troubling state of affairs as regards the on-board catering services being offered by the appellant on the subject train.”
“The claimed invention would be obvious to the person skilled in the art, and therefore, the defendant has been able to raise a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent under Section 64(1)(f) of the Act.”
“Clearly when an unauthorized person files a petition of this nature for taking action against unauthorized construction, the said conduct is not only deceitful, but also misuse and abuse of the process of law.”
“Refusal to allow the amendment to the specifications, which was sought to provide clarification regarding the technical advancements of the subject invention over the newly cited prior art, amounts to a clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice”
The facts and documents on record clearly establish that both Chile and Peru, are using the word PISCO for their alcoholic beverages, and the impugned order had completely disregarded their shared history regarding manufacture of the beverage PISCO.
While Patanjali could state that its product, ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’, was the best, it could not state that the other chyawanprash manufactures lacked the necessary knowledge and technical know-how to prepare the same as per ayurvedic texts, since that statement is both untrue and misleading to the public at large.
The present petition is filed by petitioner, who provides services for packing of two-wheelers, parcels, and passenger luggage with optional door pickup and delivery at Visakhapatnam Railway Station, seeking extension of his license period for seven months.
The Court stated that Defendants 1,8, 9 and 10 are engaged in illegal activities, which are potentially criminal in nature, and are aimed at deceiving unwary consumers by making them pay through their website under the false pretence of securing reservations with the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ hotels.
Despite Respondent 1’s endeavour to create distinctions, it is crystal clear that the marks are confusingly/deceptively similar to the petitioner’s registered trade mark. Such use of a similar mark would invariably mislead consumers and members into believing that the goods under the impugned mark were sourced from the petitioner.
The Court stated that the mala fide intent of Defendants 7 and 8, is evident from their infringing activity of selling counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff’s trade mark with the sole objective of capitalizing on the immense goodwill and brand image enjoyed by the plaintiff.
The infringing materials found on the site of the defendant are counterfeit goods of the plaintiff’s products, affixed with the plaintiff’s registered marks. A clear indicative of the counterfeiting activity towards the plaintiff’s products, are the observations and photographs as attached by the Local Commissioner in its report.
Upon careful comparison of the plaintiff’s trade dress and that of the defendants, it became apparent that the overall colour scheme, get-up and layout of the defendants’ impugned packaging is nearly identical to that of the plaintiff’s trade dress.
The Court held that Moonshine had demonstrated a prima facie case for a grant of injunction, the refusal of which would cause an irreparable loss to it.