Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had registered its well-known trade mark “WIPRO” and its formative trade marks in various classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The continuous acts of infringement by Movie World Visual Media Private Limited are resulting in serious reputational loss and undermining the economic interest of Saregama India Limited vis-a-vis other licensees who have acquired proper license for valuable consideration of Saregama’s copyrighted works.
The comparison of images of both names makes it abundantly clear that defendant 1 has copied the most distinctive part of the plaintiff’s mark, which is ‘Evergreen’. In the case of the defendant 1, the word ‘Evergreen’ has the prefix “JV” and the suffix “Sweets and Treats”, whereas in the plaintiff’s case, the word ‘Evergreen’ is followed by the word “Sweet House”.
Allegedly, the entire premise of the advertisement campaign by Alpino Health Foods was to denigrate oats as a category of food, including Marico’s ‘Saffola Oats’.
Puja Khedkar was alleged to have misrepresented information in her application for the UPSC Exam, 2022.
It was said that if no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted, Mankind Pharma would suffer an irreparable loss.
The accused was directed to be released on suspension of sentence after considering that the sentence awarded was for 3 years and he had already served 2/3rd of the same.
Plaintiffs submitted that being the ex-franchisee, Defendant 1 was clearly aware of the ownership and notoriety of the ‘MOTI MAHAL’, ‘MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL’, ‘TANDOORI TRAIL’ and their formative marks as well as the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the plaintiffs related to the said trade marks.
The Court expected the State to ensure adequate protection of the fundamental rights of Amandeep Singh Batra, including his right to life and liberty.
The Court directed for the CRPF personnel to be considered as having proceeded on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30-06-2021.
Supreme Court noted that the appellant will remain dependent on another person for the rest of her life. Even though the physical age will increase, her mental age will be that of a child studying in the 2nd Standard. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby.
‘Being careful while giving reasons to candidates for which they have not been appointed would help in avoiding such litigation which entails cost for candidates who may not be able to afford it.’
“Petitioner has established that that it was the prior registered proprietor and prior user of the mark ‘GANESH’ and its other formative marks since 1936. The adoption and use of the mark ‘GANESH HARA MATAR’ by Respondent 1, is likely to create confusion in the market.”
Personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of Baggage Rules, 2016.
It is submitted that Plaintiff 1 is a ‘celebrity’ and has a valid and enforceable personality right. He satisfies the dual test of personality rights, viz. having a valid and enforceable personality right on account of being a well-known reputed personality and the same is clearly identifiable in the infringing content uploaded by Defendants 1-8 and 13 on their social media accounts.
‘The Banking Ombudsman overlooked the key aspects of the matter and completely misdirected itself in law.’
It is not the petitioner’s case that he was not supplied with the grounds of arrest at the time of the arrest and prior to the remand being sought. The remand application was detailed, and contained, effectively the same set of facts as were stated in the grounds of arrest.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Delhi in September 1990 and was appointed as Additional Judge of High Court of Delhi on 17-4-2013 and became a Permanent Judge on 18-3-2015.
Justice Manmohan’s elevation to the Supreme Court was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on 28-11-2024.
“The video recorded by Defendant 1 is extremely offensive, sexually explicit, foul and filthy utterances were made in the said video by Defendant 1 against the plaintiffs, which per se shocks the conscience of the court.”