Titles of films are capable of being recognised under trademark law? Read Del HC’s decision in light of film ‘SHOLAY’
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., expressed that, the word ‘SHOLAY’, is the title of an iconic film, and consequently, as
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., expressed that, the word ‘SHOLAY’, is the title of an iconic film, and consequently, as
Supreme Court: Reversing the concurrent findings of all the Court below in a case where the plaintiff was granted the relief of
Uttaranchal High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J. dismissed an appeal that challenged an order given by the court of Civil Judge pertaining to
Kerala High Court: In an interesting case the Division Bench of A.Muhamed Mustaque and C.R. Sophy Thomas, JJ., held that not taking
Delhi High Court: Explaining the significance of a trademark, Asha Menon, J., observed that, When people are satisfied with the products supplied
Rajasthan High Court: Anoop Kumar Dhand J. allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order dated 17-08-2021 passed by the Court of
Madras High Court: G. Jayachandran, J., decided a matter with regard to infringing the registered trademark BHARATMATRIMONY. Present suit was filed for
“Principles laid down for Courts to deal with injunction applications, in a pending suit, seeking relief against passing off” Karnataka High Court:
Fraudulent and illegal encroachments of temple properties is a crime against the society at large.
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai, JJ has, in two judgments, has held that where the plaintiff’s
Supreme Court: A 3-Judge Bench of N.V. Ramana, CJI and A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. upheld the judgment of the Madras
Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., did a comprehensive analysis of the matter involving trademark infringement. Legacy of Rajdhani Plaintiff had originally
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J. while addressing the matter of trademark infringement, opined that, “Besides, considering that parties are in the
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sunil B. Shukre and Anil S. Kilor, JJ., held that mandate of Section 34 leaves
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar and C.V Bhadang, JJ., upheld the order of the District Court refusing to
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., has observed that Section 6 of Probation of Offenders
Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench of Harish Tandon and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya JJ., while allowing the present appeal, discusses upon the essentials
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that the High Court is
Bombay High Court: G.S. Patel, J., refused to pass an interim injunction restraining Zee Entertainment from using the word “Plex” in its new
Bombay High Court: G.S. Patel, J., while addressing a matter with regard to domain names registrations held that, Domain name Registrar can’t black