tis hazari court
Case BriefsDistrict Court

“Marks of plaintiff and defendant appear quite distinctive as except the word mark POLO there is no similarity. The defendant’s mark uses suffix ‘LIFETIME’ which is predominant whereas plaintiff’s mark uses suffix ‘Ralph Lauren’ and ‘picture of polo player’.”

Continue reading
delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Testers are being sold by the defendants, Xeryus Retail (P) Ltd. masquerading them as perfumes of the plaintiff, Coty Germany GMBH for sale, thereby, luring customers into paying money for such testers which are otherwise, not to be commercially dispensed.”

Continue reading
delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The Writ Courts must not substitute their opinions to the opinions arrived at by the experts unless the Court is satisfied that the decision taken by the experts is perverse or illegal. The function of the Court is only to see that the decision has been arrived at in good faith and the experts have acted reasonably.”

Continue reading
delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“A party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration based on that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar.”

Continue reading
delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“A reasoned order dated 13-4-2023 had been passed rejecting the L-1 License application of the petitioner, Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. on the ground that documents had been received from investigating agencies alleging the participation of the petitioner and its employees in commonly referred to as the ‘Delhi Excise Policy Scam’.”

Continue reading
delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“It is intriguing as to why a reputed company such as the defendant company, Wipro Enterprises would launch its product, also pertaining to female reproductive hygiene, almost 22 years later, using the identical trade mark as that of the plaintiffs, Himalaya Wellness Co.”

Continue reading
delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The rights ventilated in the plaint, that is, the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights which vested in Sushant Singh Rajput, were not heritable. They died with his death. The said rights, therefore, did not survive for espousal by the plaintiff.”

Continue reading
telangana high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Constitutional morality impacts upon any law which deprives the LGBT individuals of their entitlement to a full and equal citizenship. LGBT individuals living under threats of conformity grounded in cultural morality have been denied basic human existence. Constitutional morality does not permit such discrimination and must supersede cultural morality.”

Continue reading
delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bayer healthcare LLC was selling its product of Rs. 36,995 by importing the same into India, whereas the Natco Pharma Ltd. was manufacturing the product in India and selling the same of Rs. 9,900. The injunction was refused due to the huge disparity between the prices offered by both, for a life threatening disease.

Continue reading