ad interim Archives

In Camera proceedings can be held under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that merely because there was no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, it does not mean that in-camera proceedings cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, the Court may under Section 151 of the Code pass any order for carrying out the proceedings in camera if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.

Case Briefs High Courts

“Schezwan Chutney” is a mere descriptive term; Delhi High Court rejects plea of Capital Food (P) Ltd. of restraining Radiant Indus Chem (P) Ltd. from using the word “Schezwan Chutney”

The Delhi High Court held that “SCHEZWAN CHUTENY” was a mere descriptive term and therefore, Radiant Indus Chem (P) Ltd. could not be stopped from using the same and the Court further held that if protection was granted to the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, then similar protection should also be granted to ‘Tamarind Chutney' or ‘Tomato Chutney', as they were also combinations of words in “English and Hindi”.

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court confirms ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of AIWA Co. Ltd., a Japan company for its mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit

The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ in a trademark infringement suit

The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim injunction to New Bharat Overseas for its mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ and restrained Kian Agro Processing (P) Ltd. from affixing the mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered marks for the purposes of selling or marketing rice in India or for export to any entity, till the pendency of the suit.

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark ‘RPG’ in a trade mark infringement suit; awards Rs. 3 lakhs as damages

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark ‘RPG’. Further, RPG Developers (P) Ltd. were restrained from offering/rendering any services using the impugned trade mark ‘RPG’ and/or ‘RPG DEVELOPERS’ and/or artistic work which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiff’s artistic work or any other trade mark/artistic work deceptively similar to the ‘RPG’ marks of the plaintiff. Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs were awarded as damages to the plaintiff.

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court grants ex parte ad interim injunction to Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. for its trade mark ‘Su-Kam’ against Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd in a trade mark infringement suit

In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks ‘Su-Kam’, ‘BIG conqueror Tubular Battery’ and ‘BIG Warrior Tubular Battery’.

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Tata Sia Airlines Limited in a trade mark infringement suit; restrains Vistara Media Private Limited from using the mark ‘VISTARA’

Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court confirms ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction passed in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. for its mark ‘FORZEST’; Cost of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed for concealing material facts

Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement case where the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was challenged, the Single

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction to American Eagle against Ektarfa Garments in a trademark and copyright infringement suit

Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section