Toy Pistol

Appellant, through Application No. 3757855, sought registration of ‘COCK’ word mark for ‘water and colour pistols, water and colour guns, water and colour sprayers, being toys included in Class 28’. The objection of Learned Senior Examiner predicated on registration granted to Chinna Nadar. Chinna Nadar’s mark is a composite device mark which includes words: ‘COCK […]

Read more "Toy Pistol"


Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi rejected registration of a device mark in Class 39 on ground, subject trademark is laudatory and objectionable in terms of Section 9(1)(b) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999.   Counsel appearing on behalf of NRI Taxi Service Ltd. correctly places reliance on Mohd. Rafiq v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., […]

Read more "Laudatory"


Only one Academy Award has ever been revoked in history of Oscars. ‘Young Americans’ won for Best Documentary in 1969. It was discovered, ‘Young Americans’ had played in a theater in October, 1967. Oscar was handed over to ‘Journey Into Self’.   _____ 03.10.1980 – Chhabirani was gang-raped… 23.04.2002 – We are satisfied, present case is a […]

Read more "Chhabirani"

The Nature of Judicial Power: Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath, Lucknow v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 405 held, there is a distinction between encroachment on judicial power and nullification of effect of a judicial decision by changing law retrospectively. The former is outside competence of Legislature. The latter is within its permissible limits. It would be permissible for Legislature […]

Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna"

Public Document

Saurav Das has prayed States to enable free public access to a Charge Sheet, filed as per Section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in furtherance of rationale as established in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473. Reliance on Youth Bar Association of India; Sections 74 […]

Read more "Public Document"


‘SUBERB’ is not phonetically similar to ‘SUBWAY’. ‘Sub’, when used in context of sandwiches, is an abbreviation for ‘Submarine’, which represents a well-known variety of long-bodied sandwiches. Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Bikas, 1975 CarswellOnt 1001-Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Emma Foods, 1976 CarswellOnt 1006-Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Haralambos Voultsos, 1977 CarswellOnt 1041 testifies to commonality of […]

Read more "Submarine"

Pension is Not a Bounty IV

Rule 54(14)(b) of The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 requires, ‘family’ member of a deceased Government Servant must have a close nexus with the deceased Government Servant. Therefore, a son or daughter adopted by a widow of a deceased Government Servant, after death of the Government Servant, could not be included within definition of […]

Read more "Pension is Not a Bounty IV"


Any provision which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 can be struck down. Section 10(26AAA) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 excludes Indians who have settled in Sikkim, prior to merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975, but whose names are not registered as ‘Sikkim Subjects’. There is no difference and/or distinction between […]

Read more "Sikkimese"

The Nature of Judicial Power: [Some] Pending Collegium Recommendations

Hon’ble High Court Hon’ble Chief Justice Date of Birth   Calcutta Prakash Shrivastava 31/03/1961 Bombay S.V. Gangapurwala [Acting CJ] 24/05/1962 Madras T. Raja [Acting CJ] 25/05/1961 Allahabad Rajesh Bindal 16/04/1961 Karnataka Prasanna B. Varale 23/06/1962 Patna Sanjay Karol 23/08/1961   J&K Tashi Rabstan [Acting CJ] 10/04/1963   Madhya Pradesh Ravi Malimath 25/05/1962 Punjab and Haryana […]

Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: [Some] Pending Collegium Recommendations"

Swiss Military

The Trademarks Act, 1999 Section 2(1)(za)(iv): ‘trade description’ means any description/statement/indication, direct or indirect, as to country in which goods were made/produced/provided. Section 2(1)(i)(I): ‘false trade description’ means a ‘trade description’ which is untrue or misleading in a material respect as regards goods to which it is applied. Section 9(2)(a): a mark shall not be […]

Read more "Swiss Military"

Unchartered Ocean of Policy Decision V / The Demonetization Recommendation

Shri P. Chidambaram submits, result of demonetization was disastrous. But, if Notification No. 3407(E) [08.11.2016] had a nexus with objectives to be achieved, Notification No. 3407(E) [08.11.2016] would not be bad in law merely because some citizens suffered through hardships. It will not be proper for Court to enter into an area which should be […]

Read more "Unchartered Ocean of Policy Decision V / The Demonetization Recommendation"

Comparative Advertising III

‘GLUCON-D TANGY ORANGE’ v. ‘DABUR GLUCOPLUS-C ORANGE’   The TV commercial identifies ‘orange glucose’ as ‘product category’. But, is it disparaging in nature? Disparagement is an act of belittling someone’s goods or services with a misleading remark. The TV Commercial does not disparage any ‘orange glucose’ drink. Disparagement cannot be a far-fetched inference. It would […]

Read more "Comparative Advertising III"

The Revival of Ray XC

Constitution Bench in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421 held, the words ‘rules’ and ‘regulations’ are used in an Act to limit powers of a statutory authority; any action of such bodies in excess of their power or in violation of restrictions placed is ultra vires; statutory bodies cannot use […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray XC"

Quia Timet III

Learned Counsel for Appellant-Defendant states, Learned Single Judge has erred in not considering: Respondent-Plaintiff had bypassed Section 12A of The Commercial Court Act, 2015, which prescribes pre-institution mediation as a mandatory requirement. Respondent-Plaintiff is not only a prior adopter but also a prior registrant and allegation of suppression is irrelevant. Court is in agreement, packaging […]

Read more "Quia Timet III"

Referred to Larger Bench XVII Answered: Illegal Gratification I

“The question, ‘whether in absence of evidence of complainant / direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability / guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?’, requires a Larger […]

Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XVII Answered: Illegal Gratification I"