Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Registrar dealing with an application under the Trade Marks Act is a quasi-judicial and delegation of power under Section 3(2) is an administrative power and as such the Associate Managers are not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders.
The hearing in the present matter was concluded on 15-02-2023 and the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks passed the impugned order on 14-02-2024, i.e. after a period of one year.
The Calcutta High Court, in a previous order, requested the parties to consider resolving the dispute by blurring out or removing fruit juice packets deceptively similar to Dabur’s ‘Real’ fruit juice from the impugned video.
Calcutta High Court emphasised the need for caution in granting relief at the interlocutory stage, particularly when it resembles final relief.
Calcutta High Court stated that the defendant did not produce any documents to prove he has complied with his obligation under MOU, leading to its cancellation.
Calcutta High Court held that based on the Lease Deed, the defendant’s possession after the original term was an extension, not a renewal, and a new lease document was not required.
The Calcutta High Court noted literal interpretation of Section 9 of the Act supports the idea of provisional relief before the final enforcement of the arbitral award under Section 36.
The Calcutta High Court emphasised on the doctrine of “kompetenz-kompetenz”, granting the Arbitral Tribunal the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement.
The Calcutta High Court stated that Trademark dilution protects well-known trademarks from losing their appeal when used in connection with diverse and dissimilar products or services.