Plaintiff’s grievance, pithily placed, is, Defendant has in a brazen and blatant manner copied Plaintiff’s registered trademark: ‘FLY HIGH’. Plaintiff has no exclusive right to use the word ‘HIGH’ which, as brought out by Defendant, is a fact concealed by Plaintiff. Defendant is right in stating, ‘FLY HIGHER’ is only used in conjunction with its […]
Read more "Fly High, Higher"Ishwarbhai Madhavbhai Patel served in the Armed Forces from 1961 till his retirement in 1976. In 1990, Ishwarbhai is said to have started ‘Protection and Security Services’. Ishwarbhai breathed his last on 17.01.2021. It was at this stage, a Will, dated 28.05.2018, came to light. Elder Son-Appellant and Wife-Respondent No. 3, Partners, were excluded and […]
Read more "The Proof of Valid Wills IV / Non-Reportable Mirzapur"As such, ‘poppy straw’ would mean all parts of ‘opium poppy’ except seeds; ‘opium poppy’ has been defined under Section 2(xvii)(a) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to mean, “the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L.”. Section 15 of 1985 Act provides for punishment for contravention in relation to ‘poppy straw’. […]
Read more "Papaver Somniferum L."As discussed, right to privacy is not inheritable by heirs of deceased. Plaintiffs may have been successful if their personal right to privacy was in any way being infringed by making of this movie. But, unfortunately, no such circumstance has been pleaded by Plaintiffs. It is asserted, Plaintiffs are entitled to be left alone, to […]
Read more "Faraaz"Settlement entered into between Plaintiff and TIME Inc. [22.04.2004, CS(OS) 1389/2003][1] has no relevance in present suit for infringement and passing off. Settlement Agreement cannot jettison phonetic similarity of marks qua a third party in another matter. ‘T.I.M.E.’ and ‘TIMES’ are phonetically identical. Letters in ‘T.I.M.E.’ are separated with dots. This is a trivial dissimilarity […]
Read more "T.I.M.E. v. Times"Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills, (1979) 2 SCC 409 was authored by Bhagwati J for a Two-Judge Bench. Within 2 years, Kailasam J for a Two-Judge Bench in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar, (1981) 1 SCC 11 found fault in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills and held, observations made were not in tune with Judgments of Constitution Benches […]
Read more "Promissory Estoppel X"High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow confirmed Death Sentence. He shall be set at liberty forthwith. The case on hand is one of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness. That we have ruled out circumstances relating to i) making of an extra-judicial confession and ii) discovery of the weapon of […]
Read more "Review of Death Penalty XXXI"The ‘essential religious practices’ of followers of Sikh faith cannot be made basis of wearing of Hijab/Headscarf by believers of Islamic faith. _____ Secularism is more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. Equality before law cannot be breached by State on basis of […]
Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXXII: Hijab II"Learned Single Judge has dealt with arguments and contentions raised by SOOTHE and has rightly reached a prima facie conclusion, DABUR’s mark does not infringe SOOTHE’s trademark and DABUR is not passing off its goods as those of SOOTHE. As rightly argued by DABUR and decided by Learned Single Judge, ‘SUPER’ is descriptive and laudatory. […]
Read more "Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan JJ"Though a post-dated cheque might be drawn to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of its drawing, the cheque must represent the legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. The sum, as represented in the cheque at the time of encashment, was not owed. Since the cheque did not represent the […]
Read more "A Legally Enforceable Debt IV"It is evident, Plaintiff has a registered trade mark – ‘NO TURN’. Plaintiff has been in continuous use of this trade mark since 15.01.2008. Defendant is the prior user of the mark since 2007. The use of the mark by Defendant is intermittent and not voluminous so as to establish the defence under Section 34 […]
Read more "No Turn"‘Classic Trinity Test’ of ‘Goodwill, Misrepresentation and Damages’ [Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc, [1990] 1 All ER 873] – Satisfied. _____ Both parties claim proprietary rights and utilize the mark ‘GeoCrete’ in respect of identical goods. To permit concurrent use, in factual situation noted, would cause public confusion and result in violation […]
Read more "One Mark, One Source, One Proprietor"
The Last Word 
You must be logged in to post a comment.